aa 
3 


& ene 


Se eee 
Sedan uadebol 


SS 
Ec ineere ae Se 
read ‘sess seen 


eee She 


he 


Bales te 
apeked op 


zohs 


RG a Spee = 


ers 


ata 


ade Sess EES: 
OE 9 ero Fue 
hipaa 94: 


ani if halege on, 


of God 


Soi KN Mee Oy 
EB ee 19 me 
LOL [ aS 


THE SOVEREIGNTY 
OF GOD 


BY 


ARTHUR W. PINK. 


AUTHOR OF 


“The Redeemer’s Return” “The Divine Inspiration of the 
Bible” ‘Satan and His Gospel” etc., etc. 


BIBLE TRUTH DEPOT 
SWENGEL, PA. 


a 
t 
‘ 
*% 
& 
bs 
re ae, 
tree oe 
>< 
fax, 
ae 
wi: 
yh 
> ay’. s 
A 
lh - 


erred 
ang 2 5 
% aie | +” Be 
PaO aU ee ace 
rl) eh ae Se 


- \, 
= 4 7 
ine ¥ s 
ritLe.- P 
F Co - 
ad Page ” Ss 
FN artsy 
fs A "4 « c 4 P 


K 


COPYRIGHT 1918 | 
BIBLE TRUTH DEPOT 
SWENGEL, PA. 


» ; 
rs Pi eI] 
or 
; *, 
ve J 
* ¢¢ . FE i 
‘ , ‘ 
F) 
‘ ( b t ' 
4 
| ; : : mae 
Pa c , 
rY Z 
4 f 
i 
ares Bose | 
ae 


a y ‘ set 


ce sais 4 ff ° 
be ee : '€- 


CHAP. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


Foreword to the First Edition .. Kean (ter oratis Set Ale 
Foreword to the Second Edition ..........s...0. 


PI TOCUCEIOD dn eee eae Pa tte ad die, Shoe eae Le 


. The Sovereignty of God Defined ................ 
. The Sovereignty of God in Creation ............. 
. The Sovereignty of God in Administration ...... 
. The Sovereignty of God in Salvation ............ 
. The Sovereignty of God in Reprobation ..... AWE 
. The Sovereignty of God in Operation ............ 
_ God’s Sovereignty and the Human Will .......... 


_ God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility .... 


Wod sEpOovercionty wand brayeri... ooo. bealns ss 4s 


Our Attitude toward God’s Sovereignty ......... 


Cul leseanOueD JeCLOUSG. wey earn eens Sore 


WaliecOL Liiss OCtrING: & WA sth ee Gee te 


CTICIUSIOTI ON Os scone eae eer hen reap anh 7 y asc od 


3:16 


Pe are ye Cea eee a Bh ete te ee er algal Silly 


FOREWORD TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https ://archive.org/details/sovereigntyofgod00pink_O 


FOREWORD TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


examine anew in the light of God’s Word some of 
gees. the profoundest questions which can engage the 
human mind. Others have grappled with these mighty prob- 
lems in days gone by and from their labors we are the gain- 
ers. While making no claim for originality the writer, never- 
theless, has endeavored to examine and deal with his sub- 
ject from an entirely independent viewpoint. We have 
studied diligently the writings of such men as Augustine 
and Acquinas, Calvin and Melancthon, Jonathan Edwards 
and Ralph Erskine, Andrew Fuller and Robert Haldane.* 
And sad it is to think that these eminent and honored names 
are almost entirely unknown to the present generation. 
Though, of course, we do not endorse all their conclusions, 
yet we gladly acknowledge our deep indebtedness to their 
works. We have purposely refrained from quoting freely 
from these deeply taught theologians, because we desired 
that the faith of our readers should stand not in the wisdom 
of men but in the power of God. For this reason we have 
quoted freely from the Scriptures and have sought to fur- 
nish proof-texts for every statement we have advanced. 
It would be foolish for us to expect that this work will 
meet with general approval. The trend of modern theology 
—if theology it can be called—is ever toward the deification 
of the creature rather than the glorification of the Creator, 
and the leaven of present-day Rationalism is rapidly perme- 


qe the following pages an attempt has been made to 


*Among those who have dealt most helpfully with the subject of 
God’s Sovereignty in recent years we mention Drs. Rice, J. B. Moody, 
and Bishop, from whose writings we have also received instruction. 


8 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


ating the whole of Christendom. The malevolent effects of 
Darwinianism are more far reaching than most are aware. 
Many of those among our religious leaders who are still 
regarded as orthodox would, we fear, be found to be very 
heterodox if they were weighed in the balances of the Sanc- 
tuary. Even those who are clear, intellectually, upon pro- 
phetic and dispensational truth, are rarely sound in doctrine. 
Few, very few, today, really believe in the complete ruin and 
total depravity of man. Those who speak of man’s “free 
will,” and insist upon his inherent power to either accept 
or reject the Saviour, do but voice their ignorance of the real 
condition of Adam’s fallen children. And if there are few 
who believe that, so far as he is concerned, the condition of 
the sinner is entirely hopeless, there are fewer still who really 
believe in the absolute Sovereignty of God. 

In addition to the widespread effects of unscriptural teach- 
ing, we also have to reckon with the deplorable super ficial- 
ity of the present generation. To announce that a certain 
book is a treatise on doctrine is quite sufficient to prejudice 
against it the great bulk of church-members and most of 
our preachers as well. The craving today is for something 
light and spicy, and few have patience, still less desire, to 
examine carefully that which would make a demand both 
upon their hearts and their mental powers. We remember, 
also, how that it is becoming increasingly difficult in these 
strenuous days for those who are desirous of studying the 
- deeper things of God to find the time which such study re- 
quires. Yet, it is still true that “Where there’s a will, there’s 
a way,” and in spite of the discouraging features referred 
to, we believe there is even now a godly remnant who will 
take pleasure in giving this little work a careful considera- 
tion, and such will, we trust, find in it “(Meat in due season.” 

We do not forget the words of one long since passed 
away, namely, that “Denunciation is the last resort of a de- 


FOREWORD TO THE FIRST EDITION 9 


feated opponent.” To dismiss this book with the contemptu- 
ous epithet—‘‘Hyper—Calvanism”! will not be worthy of 
notice. - For controversy we have no taste, and we shall not 
accept any challenge to enter the lists against those who 
might desire to debate the truths discussed in these pages. 
So far as our personal reputation is concerned, that we 
leave our Lord to take care of, and unto Him we would 
now commit this volume and whatever fruit it may bear, 
praying Him to use it for the enlightening of His own dear 
people (insofar as it is in accord with His Holy Word) and 
to pardon the writer for and preserve the reader from the 
injurious effects of any false teaching that may have crept 
into it. If the joy and comfort which have come to the au- 
thor while penning these pages are shared by those who may 
scan them, then we shall be devoutly thankful to the One 
whose grace alone enables us to discern spiritual things. 
June 1918. ARTHUR W. PINK. 


FOREWORD TO THE SECOND EDITION. 


~ 


FOREWORD TO THE SECOND EDITION. 


It is now two years since the first edition of this work was 
presented to the Christian public. Its reception has been far 
more favorable than the author had expected. Many have 
notified him of the help and blessing received from a perusal 
of his attempts to expound what is admittedly a difficult 
subject. For every word of appreciation we return hearty 
thanks to Him in Whose light we alone “‘see light.” A few 
have condemned the book in unqualified terms, and these we 
commend to God and to the Word of His grace, remember- 
ing that it is written, “a man can receive nothing, except it 
be given him from heaven” (John 3:27). Others have sent 
us friendly criticisms and these have been weighed carefully, 
and we trust that, in consequence, this revised edition will 
be unto those who are members of the household of faith 
more profitable than the former one. 


One word of explanation seems to be called for.. A num- 
ber of respected brethren in Christ feel that our treatment of 
the Sovereignty of God was too extreme and one-sided. It 
has been pointed cut that a fundamental requirement in ex- 
pounding the Word of God is the need of preserving the bal- 
ance of Truth. With this we are in hearty accord. Two 
things are beyond dispute: God is sovereign, and man is a 
responsible creature. But in this book we are treating of the 
Sovereignty of God, and while the responsibility of man 1s 
readily owned, yet, we do not pause on every page to insist 
on it; instead, we have sought to stress that side of the Truth 
which in these days is almost universally neglected. Prob- 
ably 95 per cent. of the religious literature of the day is de- 
voted to a setting forth of the duties and obligations of men. 


14 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


The fact is that those who undertake to expound the Re- 
sponsibility of man are the very ones who have Jost ‘the bal- 
ance of Truth’ by ignoring, very largely, the Sovereignty of 
God. It is perfectly right to insist on the responsibility of 
man, but what of God?—has He no claims, no rights! A 
hundred such works as this are needed, ten thousand ser- 
mons would have to be preached throughout the land on this 
subject, if the ‘balance of Truth’ is to be regained. The 
‘balance of Truth’ has been lost, lost through a dispropor- 
tionate emphasis being thrown on the human side, to the 
minimizing, if not the exclusion, of the Divine side. We 
grant that this book is one-sided, for it only pretends to deal 
with one side of the Truth, and that is, the neglected side, 
the Divine side. Furthermore, the question might be raised ; 
Which is the more to be deplored—an over emphasizing of 
the human side and an insufficient emphasis on the Divine 
side, or, an over emphasizing of the Divine side and an insufh- 
cient emphasis on the human side? Surely, if we err at all 
it is on the right side. Surely, there is far more danger of 
making too much of man and too little of God, than there is 
of making too much of God and too little of man. Yea, the 
question might well be asked, Can we press God’s claims too 
far? Can we be too extreme in insisting upon the absolute- 
ness and universality of the Sovereignty of God? 

It is with profound thankfulness to God that, after a 
further two years diligent study of Holy Writ, with the 
earnest desire to discover what almighty God has been 
pleased to reveal to His children on this subject, we are able 
to testify that we see no reason for making any retractions 
from what we wrote before, and while we have re-arranged 
the material of this work, the substance and doctrine of it 
remains unchanged. May the One Who condescended to 
bless the first edition of this work be pleased to own even 
more widely this revision. -  ArtTHuR W. PINK, 
Ig2!. SWENGEL, Pa. 


INTRODUCTION. 


“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, 
in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind, 
and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.’ 
Acts: 17 212; 


ee won a 


INTRODUCTION. 


amination of the teaching of Holy Scripture con- 

y NSS cerning God’s relationship to our earth. Today, 
everything appears to be out of joint. Thrones are creak- 
ing and tottering, ancient dynasties are being over- 
turned, democracies are revolting, civilization is a demon- 
strated failure, half of Christendom was but recently locked 
together in a death grapple, and now that the titanic conflict 
is over, instead of having made the world safe for democracy, 
we are discovering that democracy is very unsafe for the 
world. Unrest, discontent, and lawlessness are rife every- 
where, and none can say how soon another great war will be 
set in motion. Statesmen are perplexed and staggered. Men’s 
hearts are “failing them for fear, and for looking after those 
things which are coming on the earth” (Luke 21:26). Many 
are declaring that Christianity is a failure, and despair is 
settling on many faces. Not a few of the Lord’s own people 
are bewildered, and their faith is being severely tried. And 
what of God? Does He see and hear? Is He impotent or 
indifferent? A number of those who are regarded as leaders 
of Christian thought are telling us that God could not help 
the coming of the late awful War and that He was unable 
to bring about its termination. It was said, and said openly, 
that conditions were beyond God’s control. But what saith 
the Scriptures? 

What saith the Scriptures? Ere we consider the direct 
reply to this query, let it be said that, the Scriptures pre- 
dicted just what we now see and hear. The prophecy of 
Jude is in course of fulfillment. It would lead us too far 


FC) sina world-conditions call loudly for a re-ex- 


18 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


astray from our present inquiry to fully amplify this as- 
sertion but what we have particularly in mind is a sen- 
tence in verse 8—“Likewise also these dreamers defile the 
flesh, despise dominion and speak evil of dignities.” 
Yes, they “speak evil” of the Supreme Dignity, the “Only 
Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords.” Ours 
is peculiarly an age of irreverence, and as the consequence, 
the spirit of lawlessness which brooks no restraint and 
which is desirous of casting off everything which interferes 
with the free course of self-will is rapidly engulfing the 
earth like some giant tidal wave. The members of the rising 
generation are the most flagrant offenders, and in the decay 
and disappearing of parental authority we have the certain 
precursor of the abolition of civic authority. Therefore, in 
view of the growing disrespect for human law and the refusal 
to “render honor to whom honor is due,” we need not be sur- 
prised that the recognition of the majesty, the authority, the 
sovereignty of the Almighty Law-giver should recede more 
and more into the background and that the masses have less 
and less patience with those who insist upon them.. And 
conditions will not improve; instead, the more sure Word of 
Prophecy makes known to us that they will grow worse and 
worse, until they culminate in the manifestation and reign 
of the Man of Sin—the “Lawless One’—who shall openly 
challenge and defy God Himself. Nor do we expect to be 
able to stem the tide—it has already risen much too high 
for that. All we can now hope to do is warn our fellow 
saints against the spirit of the age and seek to counteract its 
baneful influence upon them. 

It is in view of what we have briefly referred to above 
that we say, Present-day conditions call loudly for a new 
examination and new presentation of God’s omnipotency, 
God’s sufficiency, God’s sovereignty. From every pulpit 
in the land it needs to be thundered forth that God still 


INTRODUCTION 19 


lives, that God still observes, that God still reigns. Faith 
is now in the crucible, it ts being tested by fire, and there 
is no fixed and sufficient resting-place for the heart and 
mind but in the Throne of God. What is needed now, as 
never before, is a full, positive, constructive setting forth 
of the Godhood of God. Drastic diseases call for drastic 
remedies. People are weary of platitudes and mere gen- 
eralizations—the call is for something definite and spe- 
cific. Soothing-syrup may serve for peevish children, but 
an iron tonic is better suited for adults, and we know of 
nothing which is better calculated to infuse spiritual vigor 
into our frames than a scriptural apprehension of the full 
character of God. It is written, “The people that do know 
their God shall be strong and do exploits” (Dan. 11:32). 


Without a doubt a world crisis is at hand, and every- 
where men are alarmed. But God is not! He is never taken 
by surprise. It is no un-expected emergency which now 
confronts Him, for He is the One who “worketh all things 
after the counsel of His own will’ (Eph. 1:11). Hence, 
though the world is panic-stricken, the word to the believer 
is, “Fear not’! “All things” are subject to His immediate 
control: “all things” are moving in accord with His eternal 
purpose, and therefore, “all things” are “working together 
for good to them that love God, to them who are the called 
according to His purpose.” It must be so, for “of Him, and 
through Him, and to Him are all things’ (Rom. 11:36). 
Yet how little is this realised today even by the people of God! 
Ours is an age of practical atheism when men would shut God 
out from His own creation. In the material world every- 
thing is ordered by the “laws of Nature,” and in the human 
realm man’s “free will” is supreme, until, at best, Deity is 
nothing more than a far distant Spectator. It is true that 
man has a will, but so also has God. It is true that man is 
endowed with power, but God is all-powerful. It is true that, 


20 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


speaking generally, the material world is regulated by law, 
but behind that law is the law-Giver and law-Administrator. 
Man is but the creature. God is the Creator, and endless ages 
before man first saw the light “the mighty God” (Isa. 9:6) 
existed, and ere the world was founded, made His plans; 
and being infinite in power and man only finite, His pur- 
pose and plan cannot be withstood or thwarted by the crea- 
tures of His own hands. 

We readily acknowledge that life is a profound problem 
and that we are surrounded by mystery on every side; but 
we are not like the beasts of the field—ignorant of their 
origin, and unconscious of what is before them. No: “We 
have also a more sure Word of Prophecy” of which it is said 
ye do well that ye ‘“‘take heed, as unto a light that shineth in 
a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in 
your hearts” (2 Pet. 1:19). And it is to this Word of 
Prophecy we indeed do well to “take heed,” to that Word 
which had not its origin in the mind of man but in the Mind 
of God, for, “the prophecy came not at any time by the will 
of man: but holy men of God spake moved by the Holy 
Spirit.” We say again, it is to this “Word” we do well to 
take heed. As we turn to this Word and are instructed 
thereout, we discover a fundamental principle which must 
be applied to every problem: Instead of beginning with man 
and his world and working back to God, we must begin with 
God and work down to man—“In the beginning God”! 
Apply this principle to the present situation. Begin with 
the world as it is today and try and work back to God, and 
everything will seem to show that God has no connection 
with the world at all. But begin with God and work 
down to the world and light, much light, is cast on the 
problem. Because God is holy His anger burns against sin; 
because God is righteous His judgments fall upon those 
who rebel against Him; because God is faithful the solemn 


INTRODUCTION 21 


threatenings of His Word are fulfilled, because God is 
omnipotent none can successfully resist Him, still less over- 
throw His counsel; and because God is omniscient no prob- 
lem can master Him and no difficulty baffle His wisdom. 
It is just because God is who He is and what He is that 
we are now beholding on earth what we do—the beginning 
of His outpoured judgments: in view of His inflexible 
justice and immaculate holiness we could not expect any- 
thing other than what is now spread before our eyes. 

Here is the fundamental difference between the man of 
faith and the man of unbelief. The unbeliever is “of the 
world,” judges everything by worldly standards, views life 
from the standpoint of time and sense, and weighs every- 
thing in the balances of his own carnal making. But the 
man of faith brings im God, looks at everything from His 
standpoint, estimates values by spiritual standards, and views 
life in the light of eternity. Doing this, he receives whatever 
comes as from the hand of God. Doing this, his heart is 
calm in the midst of the storm. Doing this, he rejoices in 
hope of the glory of God. ° 

In these opening paragraphs we have indicated the lines 
of thought followed out in this book. Our first postulate is 
that because God 1s God He does as He pleases, only as He 
pleases, always as He pleases; that His great concern is the 
accomplishment of His own pleasure and the promotion of 
His own glory; that He is the Supreme Being, and there- 
fore Sovereign of the universe. Starting with this postulate 
we have contemplated the erercise of God’s Sovereignty, 
first in Creation, second in Governmental Administration 
over the works of His hands, third in the Salvation of His 
own elect, fourth in the Reprobation of the wicked, and 
fifth in Operation upon and within men. Next we have 
viewed the Sovereignty of God as it relates to the human 
Will in particular and human Responsibility in general, and 


22 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


have sought to show what is the only becoming attitude for 
the creature to take in view of the majesty of the Creator. A 
separate chapter has been devoted to a consideration of some 
of the difficulties which are involved and to answering the 
questions which are likely to be raised in the minds of our 
readers, while one chapter has been devoted to a more 
careful yet brief examination of God’s Sovereignty in rela- 
tion to Prayer, and another chapter takes up God’s Sover- 
eignty in relation to Service. Finally, we have sought to show 
that the Sovereignty of God is a truth revealed to us in 
Scripture for the comfort of our hearts, the strengthening 
of our souls, and the blessing of our lives. A due apprehen- 
sion of God’s Sovereignty promotes the spirit of worship, 
provides an incentive to practical godliness, and inspires 
zeal in service. It is deeply humbling to the human heart, 
but in proportion to the degree that it brings man into the 
dust before his Maker, to that extent is God glorified. 

We are well aware that what we have written is in open 
opposition to much of the teaching that is current both in 
religious literature and in the representative pulpits of the 
land. We freely grant that the postulate of God’s Sovereignty 
with all its corollaries is at direct variance with the opinions 
and thoughts of the natural man, but the truth is, we are 
quite unable to think upon these matters: we are incompe- 
tent for forming a proper estimate of God’s character and 
ways, and it is because of this that God has given us a revela- 
tion of His mind, and in that revelation He plainly de- 
clares “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are 
your ways My ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens 
are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your 
ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Is. 55:8,9). 
In view of this Scripture it is only to be expected that much 
of the contents of the Bible conflicts with the sentiments 
of the carnal mind which is at enmity against God. Our ap- 


INTRODUCTION 23 


peal then is not to popular beliefs of the day, nor to the 
creeds of the churches, but to the Law and Testimony of 
Jehovah. All that we ask is for an impartial and attentive 
examination of what we have written, and that, made prayer- 
fully in the light of the Lamp of Truth. May the reader heed 
the Divine admonition to “prove all things; hold fast that 
which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). 


CHAPTER ONE. 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY DEFINED. 


_“Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, 
and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven 
and in the earth is Thine; Thine is the kingdom, O Lord, 
and Thou art exalted as Head above all.” 
I Chron. 29:11. 


l. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD DEFINED. 


HE Sovereignty of God is an expression that once 

Gy was generally understood. It was a phrase com- 
“ monly used in religious literature. It was a theme 
frequently expounded in the pulpit. It was a truth which 
brought comfort to many hearts and gave virility and sta- 
bility to Christian character. But, today, to make mention 
of God’s Sovereignty is, in many quarters, to speak in an 
unknown tongue. Were we to announce from the average 
pulpit that the subject of our discourse would be the Sov- 
ereignty of God it would sound very much as though we 
had borrowed a phrase from one of the dead languages. 
Alas! that it should be so. Alas! that the doctrine which 
is the key to history, the interpreter of Providence, the warp 
and woof of Scripture, and the foundation of Christian the- 
ology, should be so sadly neglected and so little understood. 
The Sovereignty of God. What do we mean by this 
expression? We mean the Supremacy of God, the Kingship 
of God, the Godhood of God. To say that God is sovereign 
is to declare that God is God. To say that God is sovereign 
is to declare that He is the Most High doing according to 
His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants 
of the earth, so that none can stay His hand or say unto 
Him what doest Thou? (Dan. 4:35). To say that God is 
sovereign is to declare that He is the Almighty, the Possessor 
of all power in heaven and earth, so that none can defeat 
His counsels, thwart His purposes, or resist His will (Ps. 
115:3). To say that God is sovereign is to declare that He 
is “The Governor among the nations” (Ps. 22:28), setting 
up kingdoms, overthrowing empires, and determining the 


28 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


course of dynasties as pleaseth Him best. To say that God 
is sovereign is to declare that He is the “Only Potentate, the 
King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:15). Such 
is the God of the Bible. 

How different is the God of the Bible from the God of 
modern Christendom! The conception of Deity which pre- 
vails most widely today, even among those who profess to 
give heed to the Scriptures, is a miserable caricature, a blas- 
phemous travesty of the Truth. The God of the twentieth 
century is a helpless, effeminate being who commands the 
respect of no really thoughtful man. The God of the popu- 
lar mind is the creation of a maudlin sentimentality. The 
God of many a present-day pulpit is an object of pity rather 
than of awe-inspiring reverence.* To say that God the 
Father has purposed the salvation of all mankind, that God 
the Son died with the express intention of saving the whole 
human race, and that God the Holy Spirit is now seeking 
to win the world to Christ, when, as a matter of common 
observation it is apparent that the great majority of our 
fellow-men are dying in sin and passing into a hopeless 
eternity, is to say that God the Father is disappointed, that 
God the Son is dis-satisfied, and that God the Holy Spirit is 
defeated. We have stated the issue baldly, but there is no 
escaping the conclusion. To argue that God is “trying His 
best” to save all mankind, but that the majority of men will 
not let Him save them, is to insist that the will of the Creator 
is impotent, and that the will of the creature is omnipotent. 
To throw the blame, as many do, upon the Devil, does not 
remove the difficulty, for if Satan is defeating the purpose 
of God, then, Satan is Almighty and God is no longer the 
Supreme Being. 

*Not long since an evangelical (?) preacher of nation-wide reputa- 
tion visited the town in which we then were, and during the course 


of his address kept repeating “Poor God! Poor God!” Surely it is 
this “preacher” who needs to be pitied. 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD DEFINED 29 


To declare that the Creator’s original plan has been frus- 
trated by sin, is to dethrone God. To suggest that God was 
taken by surprise in Eden and that He is now attempting 
to remedy an unforeseen calamity is to degrade the Most 
High to the level of a finite, erring mortal. To argue that 
man is a free moral agent and the determiner of his own 
destiny, and that therefore he has the power to checkmate 
his Maker, is to strip God of the attribute of Omnipotence. 
To say that the creature has burst the bounds assigned by his 
Creator and that God is now practically a helpless Spectator 
before the sin and suffering entailed by Adam’s fall, is to 
repudiate the express declaration of Holy Writ, namely, 
“Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee: the remainder 
of wrath shalt Thou restrain” (Ps. 76:10). In a word, to 
deny the Sovereignty of God is to enter upon a path which 
if followed to its logical terminus is to arrive at blank 
atheism. 

The Sovereignty of the God of Scripture is absolute, 
irresistible, infinite. When we say that God is sovereign 
we affirm His right to govern the universe, which He has 
made for His own glory, just as He pleases. We affirm 
that His right is the right of the Potter over the clay, i.e., 
that He may mould that clay into whatsoever form He 
chooses, fashioning out of the same lump one vessel unto 
honor and another unto dishonor. We affirm that He is 
under no rule or law outside of His own will and nature, 
that God is a law unto Himself, and that He is under no 
- obligation to give an account of.His matters to any. 

Sovereignty characterises the whole Being of God. He 
is sovereign in all His attributes. He is sovereign in the 
exercise of His power. His power is exercised as He wills, 
when He wills, where He wills. This fact is evidenced on— 
every page of Scripture. For a long season that power 
appears to lie dormant and then it is put forth in irresistible 


30 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


might. Pharaoh dared to hinder Israel from going forth 
to worship Jehovah in the wilderness—what happened? God 
exercised His power, His people were delivered and their 
cruel task-masters slain. But a little later, the Amalekites 
dared to attack these same Israelites in the wilderness, and 
what happened? Did God put forth His power on this 
occasion and display His hand as He did at the Red Sea? 
Were these enemies of His people promptly overthrown and 
destroyed? No, on the contrary, the Lord swore that He 
would “have war with Amalek from generation to genera- 
tion” (Ex. 17:16). Again, when Israel entered the land of 
Canaan, God’s power was signally displayed. The city of Jer- 
icho barred their progress—what happened? Israel did not 
draw a bow nor strike a blow: the Lord stretched forth His 
hand and the walls fell down flat. But the miracle was never 
repeated! No other city fell after this manner. Every 
other city had to be captured by the sword! 

Many other instances might be adduced illustrating the 
sovereign exercise of God’s power. Take one other example. 
God put forth His power and David was delivered from 
Goliath, the giant; the mouths of the lions were closed and 
Daniel escaped unhurt; the three Hebrew children were 
cast into the burning fiery furnace and came forth unharmed 
and unscorched. But God's power did not always interpose . 
for the deliverance of His people, for we read: “And others 
had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover 
of bonds and imprisonment: they were stoned, they were 
sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword; they 
wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins ; being destitute, 
afflicted, tormented” (Heb. 11:36, 37). But why? Why 
were not these men of faith delivered like the others? Or, 
why were not the others suffered to be killed like these? 
Why should God’s power interpose and rescue some and not 
the others? 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD DEFINED 31 


God is sovereign in the delegation of His power to others. 
Why did God endow Methuselah with a vitality which en- 
abled him to outlive all his contemporaries? Why did God 
impart to Samson a physical strength which no other human 
has ever possessed? Again; it is written, “But thou shalt 
remember the Lord thy God: for it is He that giveth thee 
power to get wealth” (Deut. 8:18), but God does not be- 
stow this power on all alike. Why not? Why has He given 
such power to men like Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller? 
The answer to all of these questions, is, Because God is 
Sovereign, and being Sovereign He does as He pleases. 

God is sovereign in the exercise of His mercy. Neces- 
sarily so, for mercy is directed by the will of Him that 
showeth mercy. Mercy is not a right to which man is en- 
titled. Mercy is that adorable attribute of God by which 
He pities and relieves the wretched. But under the right- 
eous government of God no one is wretched who does not 
deserve tobe so. The objects of mercy, then, are those who 
are miserable, and all misery is the result of sin, hence the 
miserable are deserving of punishment not mercy, To 
speak of deserving mercy is a contradiction of terms. 

God bestows His mercies on whom He pleases and with- 
holds them as seemeth good unto Himself. A remarkable 
illustration of this fact is seen in the manner that God re- 
sponded to the prayers of two men offered under very simi- 
lar circumstances. Sentence of death was passed upon 
Moses for one act of disobedience, and he besought the Lord 
for a reprieve. But was his desire gratified? No he told 
Israel, “The Lord is wroth with me for your sakes, and 
would not hear me: and the Lord said unto me, Let it suffice 
thee” (Deut. 3:26). Now mark the second case:—‘“In 
those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet 
Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, 
Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou 


32 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


shalt die, and not live. Then he turned his face to the wall, 
and prayed unto the Lord, saying, I beseech thee, O Lord, 
remember now how I have walked before Thee in truth and 
with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in 
Thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore. And it came to pass, 
afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the 
word of the Lord came to him, saying, Turn again, and tell 
Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the Lord, 
the God of David thy father, J have heard thy prayer, I 
have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third 
day thou shalt go up unto the house of the Lord. And I 
will add unto thy days fifteen years” (2 Kings 20:1-6). 
Both of these men had the sentence of death in themselves 
and both prayed earnestly unto the Lord’for a reprieve: the 
one wrote: “The Lord would not hear me,” and died, but 
to the other it was said, “I have heard thy prayer” and his 
life was spared. What an illustration and exemplification 
, of the truth expressed in Rom. 9:15!—‘For He saith to 
~ Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and 
I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” 

The sovereign exercise of God’s mercy—pity shown to 
the wretched—was displayed when Jehovah became flesh 
and tabernacled among men. Take one illustration. Dur- 
ing one of the Feasts of the Jews, the Lord Jesus went 
up to Jerusalem. He came to the Pool of Bethesda where 
lay “a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, with- 
ered, waiting for the moving of the water.” Among this 
“Great multitude” there was “a certain man which had an 
infirmity thirty and eight years.” What happened? ‘When 
Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long 
time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made 
whole? The impotent man answered Him, Sir, I have no 
man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: 
but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me. 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD DEFINED 33 


Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. And 
immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, 
and walked” (John 5:3-9). Why was this one man singled 
out from all the others? We are not told that he cried 
“Lord, have mercy on me.” There is not a word in the 
narrative which intimates that this man possessed any quali- 
fications which entitled him to receive special favor. Here 
then was a case of the sovereign exercise of Divine mercy, 
for it was just as easy for Christ to heal the whole of that 
“great multitude” as this one “certain man.’ But He did 
not. He put forth His power and relieved the wretchedness 
of this one particular sufferer, and for some reason known 
only to Himself, He declined to do the same for the others. 
Again we say, what an illustration and exemplification of 
Rom. 9:15 !—“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, 
and I will have compassion on whom I will have com- 
passion.” 

God is sovereign in the exercise of His love. Ah! that 
is a hard saying, who then can receive it? It is written, 
“A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from 
heaven” (John 3:27). When we say that God is sovereign 
in the exercise of His love, we mean that: He loves whom 
He chooses. God does not love everybody*; if He did, He 
would love the Devil. Why does not God love the Devil? 
Because there is nothing in him to love; because there is 
nothing in him to attract the heart of God. Nor is there 
anything to attract God’s love in any of the fallen sons of 
Adam, for all of them are, by nature, “children of wrath” 
(Eph. 2:3). If then there is nothing in any member of 
the human race to attract God’s love, and if, notwithstand- 
ing, He does love some, then it necessarily follows that the 
cause of His love must be found in Himself, which is only 


*John 3:16 will be examined on page 253. 


34 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


another way of saying that the exercise of God’s love to- 
wards the fallen sons of men is according to His own good 
pleasure.* 

In the final analysis, the exercise of God’s love must be 
traced back to His sovereignty, or, otherwise, He would 
love by rule, and if He loved by rule, then is He under a. law 
of love, and if He is under a Jaw of love then is He not 
supreme, but is Himself ruled by law. “But,” it may be 
asked, “Surely you do not deny that God loves the entire 
human family?” We reply, it is written, “Jacob have I loved, 
but Esau have I hated” (Rom. 9:13). If then God loved 
Jacob and hated Esau and that, before they were born or 
had done either good or evil, then the reason for His love 
was not in them, but in Himself. 

That the exercise of God’s love is according to His own 
sovereign pleasure is also clear from the language of Eph. 
I :3-5, where we read, “Blessed be the God and Father of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual 
blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as He hath 
chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that 
we should be holy and without blame before Him. Jn love 
having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by 
Jesus Christ to Himself according to the good pleasure of 
His will.’ It was “in love” that God the Father predestined 
His chosen ones unto the adoption of children by Jesus 
Christ to Himself, ““according”—according to what? Accord- 
ing to some excellency He discovered in them? No. What 
then? According to what He foresaw they would become? 
No; mark carefully the inspired answer—‘According to the 
good pleasure of Hts will.’ 

*We are not unmindful of the fact that in the last century men 
invented the distinction between God’s love of complacency and His 
love of compassion, but this 1s an invention pure and simple. Scrip- 


ture terms the latter God’s “pity” (see Matt. 18:33), and also “He 
is kind unto the unthankful and the evil” (Luke 6:35) ! 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD DEFINED 35 


God is sovereign in the exercise of His grace. his of 
necessity, for grace is favor shown to the un-deserving, yea, 
to the Hell-deserving. Grace is the antithesis of justice. 
Justice demands the impartial enforcement of law. Justice 
requires that each shall receive his legitimate due, neither 
more nor less. Justice bestows no favors and is no respecter 
of persons. Justice, as such, shows no pity and knows no 
mercy. But after justice has been fully satished, grace 
flows forth. Divine grace is not exercised at the expense 
of justice, but “grace reigns through righteousness” (Rom. 
5:21) and if grace “reigns” then is grace sovereign. 

Grace has been defined as the unmerited favor of God ;* 
and if unmerited then none can claim it as their inalienable 
right. If grace is unearned and undeserved, then none are 
entitled to it. If grace is a gift then none can demand it. 
Therefore as salvation is by grace, the free gift of God, then 
He bestows it on whom He pleases. Because salvation is 
by grace, the very chief of sinners is not beyond the reach 
of Divine mercy. Because salvation is by grace, boasting is 
excluded and God gets all the glory. 

The sovereign exercise of grace is illustrated on nearly 
every page of Scripture. The Gentiles are left to walk in 
their own ways while Israel becomes the covenant people 
of Jehovah. Ishmael the firstborn is cast out unblest, while 
Isaac the son of his parents’ old age is made the child of 
promise. Esau the generous-hearted and forgiving-spirited 
is denied the blessing, though he sought it carefully with 


*An esteemed friend who kindly read through this book in its 
manuscript form, and to whom we are indebted for a number of 
excellent suggestions, has pointed out, that grace is something more 
than “unmerited favor.” To feed a tramp who calls on me is 
“anmerited favor,” but it is scarcely grace. But suppose that after 
robbing me I should feed this starving tramp—that would be “grace.” 
Grace, then, is favor shown where there is positive de-merit in the 
one receiving it. 


36 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


tears, while the worm Jacob receives the inheritance and is 
fashioned into a vessel of honor. So in the New Testament. 
Divine truth is hidden from the wise and prudent, but is 
revealed to babes. The Pharisees and Sadducees are left 
to go their own way, while publicans and harlots are drawn 
by the cords of love. 

In a remarkable manner Divine grace was exercised at the 
time of the Saviour’s birth. The incarnation of God’s Son 
was one of the greatest events in the history of the universe 
and yet its actual occurrence was not made known to all 
mankind, instead, it was specially revealed to the Bethlehem 
shepherds and wise men of the East. And this was pro- 
phetic and indicative of the entire course of this dispensation, 
for even today Christ is not made known to all. It would 
have been an easy matter for God to have sent a company 
of angels to every nation and announced the birth of His 
Son. But He did not. God could have readily attracted 
the attention of all mankind to the “star ;’ but He did not. 
Why? Because God is sovereign and dispenses His favors 
as He pleases. Note particularly the two classes to whom 
the birth of the Saviour was made known, namely, the most 
unlikely classes—illiterate shepherds, and heathen from a 
far country. No angel stood before the Sanhedrin and an- 
nounced the advent of Israel’s Messiah! No “star” ap- 
peared unto the scribes and lawyers as they, in their pride 
and self-righteousness, searched the Scriptures! They 
searched diligently to find out where He should be born, and 
yet it was not made known to them when He was actually 
come. What a display of Divine sovereignty—the illiterate 
shepherds singled out for peculiar honor, and the learned 
and eminent passed by! And why was the birth of the 
Saviour revealed to these foreigners and not to those in 
whose midst He was born? See in this a wonderful fore- 
shadowing of God’s dealings with our race throughout the 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD DEFINED 37 


entire Christian dispensation—sovereign in the exercise of 
His grace, bestowing His favors on whom He pleases, often 
on the most unlikely and unworthy.* 


*It has been pointed out to us that God’s sovereignty was signally 
displayed in His choice of the place where His Son was born. Not 
to Greece or Italy did the Lord of Glory come, but to the insignificant 
land of Palestine! Not in Jerusalem—the royal city—was Imman- 
uel born, but in Bethlehem, which was “little among the thousands 
(of towns and villages) in Judah” (Micah 5:2)! And it was in 
despised Nazareth that He grew up!! Truly, God’s ways are not ours. 


CHAPTER TWO. 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN CREATION. 


“Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honor, and power: 
for Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure 
they are and were created.” 
REVa Aci. 


= ie Pe ata ich. * 2. 
, ‘ « ~” 


, 


ae 
‘ 


So ¥ 
4 
‘ 
: 
i ba 
é 
D 
’ a 
~~ 
+ 
. ' x 
ey | f 4 
) 
he | 
‘ 
‘ ‘ 
Ls 
> on 
: . 
wy eo 
‘ at < 
’ 
cA wm 
i ji 
f - 
' vad 
rope AK 
jo gt eT ase 
"y 
‘ 
“ 
) 
ny 
‘ 
‘ 
f 
4 s 
’ 
*. 


[l. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN CREATION. 


FEBS note shown that Sovereignty characterises the 


whole Being of God, let us now observe how it marks 
yew G all His ways and dealings. 

In the great expanse of eternity which stretches behind 
Genesis 1:1 the universe was unborn and creation existed 
only in the mind of the great Creator. In His sovereign 
majesty God dwelt all alone. We refer to that far distant 
period before the heavens and the earth were created. There 
were then no angels to sing God’s praises, no creatures to oc- 
cupy His notice, no rebels to be brought into subjection. The 
great God was all alone amid the awful silence of His own 
vast universe. But even at that time, if time it could be 
called, God was sovereign. He might create or not create 
according to His own good pleasure. He might create this 
way or that way; He might create one world or one million 
worlds and who was there to resist His will? He might 
call into existence a million different creatures and place 
them on absolute equality, endowing them with the same 
faculties and placing them in the same environment; or, He 
might create a million creatures each differing from the 
others and possessing nothing in common save their creature- 
hood, and who was there to challenge His right? If He so 
pleased, He might call into existence a world so immense 
that its dimensions were utterly beyond finite computation ; 
and were He so disposed He might create an organism so 
small that nothing but the most powerful microscope could 
reveal its existence to human eyes. It was His sovereign 
right to create, on the one hand, the exalted seraphim to burn 
around His throne, and on the other hand, the tiny insect 


42 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


which dies the same hour that it is born. If the mighty God 
chose to have one vast gradation in His universe from loftiest 
seraph to creeping reptile, from revolving worlds to floating 
atom, from macrocosm to microcosm, instead of making 
everything uniform, who was there to question His sovereign 
pleasure? 

Behold then the exercise of Divine sovereignty long before 
man ever saw the light. With whom took God counsel in 
the creation and disposition of His creatures. See the birds 
as they fly through the air, the beasts as they roam the earth, 
the fishes as they swim in the sea, and then ask, Who was 
it that made them to differ? Was it not their Creator who 
sovereignly assigned their various locations and adaptations 
to them! 

Turn your eye to the heavens and observe the mysteries 
of Divine sovereignty which there confront the thoughtful 
beholder. “There is one glory of the sun, and another 
glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one 
star differeth from another star in glory” (1 Cor. 15:41), 
but why should they? Why should the sun be more glorious 
than all the other planets? Why should there be stars of the 
first magnitude and others of the tenth? Why such amazing 
inequalities? Why should some of the heavenly bodies be 
more favorably placed than others in their relation to the 
sun? And why should there be ‘shooting stars,’ falling 
stars, “wandering stars” (Jude 13), ina word, ruined stars? 
And the only possible answer is, “For Thy pleasure they 
are and were created” (Rev. 4:11). 

Come now to our own planet. Why should two thirds 
of its surface be covered with water, and why should so 
much of its remaining third be unfit for human cultivation 
or habitation? Why should there be vast stretches of 
marshes, deserts and ice-fields? Why should one country 
be so inferior, topographically, from another? Why should 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN CREATION 43 


one be fertile, and another almost barren? Why should one 
be rich in minerals and another own none? Why should 
the climate of one be congenial and healthy, and another 
uncongenial and unhealthy? Why should one abound in 
rivers and lakes, and another be almost devoid of them? 
Why should one be constantly troubled with earthquakes 
and another be almost entirely free from them? Why? 
Because thus it pleased the Creator and Upholder of all 
things. 

Consider the angelic hosts. Surely we shall find uni- 
formity here. But no; here, as elsewhere, the same sov- 
ereign pleasure of the Creator is displayed. Some are higher 
in rank than others; some are more powerful than others; 
some are nearer to God than others. Scripture reveals a 
definite and well defined gradation in the angelic orders. 
From arch-angel, past seraphim and cherubim, we come to 
“principalities and powers” (Eph. 3:10), and from princi- 
palities and powers to “rulers” (Eph. 6:12), and then to 
the angels themselves, and even among them we read of “the 
elect angels” (1 Tim. 5:21). Again we ask, Why this in- 
equality, this difference in rank and order. And all we 
can say is “Our God is in the heavens, He hath done whatso- 
ever He hath pleased” (Ps. 115:3). 

Look at the animal kingdom and note the wondrous 
variety. What comparison is possible between the lion and 
the lamb, the bear and the kid, the elephant and the mouse? 
Some, like the horse and the dog, are gifted with great 
intelligence ; while others, like sheep and swine, are almost 
devoid of it. Why? Some are designed to be beasts of 
burden, while others enjoy a life of freedom. But why 
should the mule and the donkey be shackled to a life of 
drudgery, while the lion and tiger are allowed to roam the 
jungle at their pleasure? Some are fit for food, others 


44 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


unfit; some are beautiful, others ugly; some are endowed 
with great strength, others are quite helpless; some are fleet 
of foot, others can scarcely crawl—contrast the hare and 
the tortoise; some are of use to man, others appear to be 
quite valueless ; some live for centuries, others a few months 
at most; some are tame, others fierce. But why all these 
variations and differences? 

What is true of the animals is equally true of the birds 
and fishes. But consider now the vegetable kingdom. 
Why should roses have thorhs, and lilies grow without them? 
Why should one flower emit a fragrant aroma and another 
have none? Why should one tree bear fruit which is whole- 
some and another that which is poisonous? Why should one 
vegetable be capable of enduring frost and another wither 
under it? Why should one apple tree be loaded with fruit, 
and another tree of the same age and in the same orchard be 
almost barren? Why should one plant flower a dozen times 
in a year and another bear blossoms but once a century ? 
Truly “whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did He in heaven, 
and in the earth, in the seas, and all deep places” (Ps. 135:0). 

If then we see the Sovereignty of God displayed through- 
out all creation why should it be thought a strange thing 
if we behold it operating in the midst of the human family? 
Why should it be thought strange if to one God is pleased to 
give five talents and to another only one? Why should it be 
thought strange if one is born with a robust constitution and 
another of the same parents is frail and sickly? Why should 
it be thought strange if Abel is cut off in his prime, while Cain 
is suffered to live on for many years? Why should it be 
thought strange that some should be born black and others 
white; some be born idiots and others with high intellectual 
endowments; some be born constitutionally lethargic and 
others full of energy; some be born with a temperament that 
is selfish, fiery, egotistical, others who are naturally self-sac- 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 1N CREATION 45 


rificing, submissive and meek? Why should it be thought 
strange if some are qualified by nature to lead and rule, 
while others are only fitted to follow and serve? Heredity 
and environment cannot account for all these variations and 
inequalities. No; it is God who maketh one to differ from 
another. Why should He? “Even so, Father, for so it 
seemed good in Thy sight” must be our reply. 

Learn then this basic truth, that the Creator is absolute 
Sovereign, executing His own will, performing His own 
pleasure, and considering nought but His own glory. “The 
Lord hath made all things FOR HIMSELF” (Prov. 16:4). 


~ 


Ls" 


TE Pele Raa EER By 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION. 


“The Lord hath prepared His Throne in the heavens; 
and His Kingdom ruleth over all.” 
Psalnie10310: 


Ill. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION. 


~— ~~ 


SR IRST, a word concerning the need for God to govern 
t the material world. Suppose the opposite for a mo- 
es ment. For the sake of argument, let us say that God 
created the world, designed and fixed certain laws (which 
men term “the laws of Nature’), and that He then with- 
drew, leaving the world to its fortune and the out-working of 
these laws. In such a case, we should have a world over 
which there was no intelligent, presiding Governor, a world 
controlled by nothing more than impersonal laws—a concept 
worthy of gross Materialism and blank Atheism. But, I say, 
suppose it for a moment; and in the light of such a suppo- 
sition, weigh well the following question :—What guaranty 
have we that some day ere long the world will not be de- 
stroyed? A very superficial observation of ‘the laws of 
Nature’ reveals the fact that they are not uniform in their 
working. The proof of this is seen in the fact that no two 
seasons are alike. If then Nature’s laws are irregular in 
their operations, what guaranty have we against some dread- 
ful catastrophe striking our earth? “The wind bloweth 
where it listeth’ (pleaseth), which means that man can 
neither harness nor control it. Sometimes the wind blows 
with great fury, and it might be that it should suddenly 
gather in volume and velocity until it became a hurricane 
earth-wide in its range. If there is nothing more than the 
laws of Nature regulating the wind, then, perhaps tomorrow, 
there may come a terrific tornado and sweep everything 
from the surface of the earth. What assurance have we 
against sucha calamity? Again; of late years we have heard 
and read much about clouds bursting and flooding whole dis- 


50 THE SOVEREIGN'TY OF GOD 


tricts, working fearful havoc in the destruction of both 
property and life. Man is helpless before them, for science 
can devise no means to prevent clouds bursting. Then how 
do we know that these bursting-clouds will not be multiplied 
indefinitely and the whole earth be deluged by their down- 
pour? This would be nothing new: why should not the Flood 
of Noah’s day be repeated? And what of earthquakes? 
Every few years, some island or some great city is swept 
out of existence by one of them—and what can man do? 
Where is the guaranty that-ere long a mammoth earthquake 
will not destroy the whole world? Science tells us of great 
subterranean fires burning beneath the comparatively thin 
crust of our earth, how do we know but what these fires will 
not suddenly burst forth and consume our entire globe? 
Surely every reader now sees the point we are seeking to 
make. Deny that God is governing matter, deny that He is 
“upholding all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:3) 
and all sense of security 1s gone! 

Let us pursue a similar course of reasoning in connection 
with the human race. Is God governing this world of ours? 
Is He shaping the destinies of nations, controlling the course 
of empires, determining the limits of dynasties? Has He 
prescribed the limits of evil-doers, saying, Thus far shalt 
thou go and no further? Let us suppose the opposite for a 
moment. Let us assume that God has delivered over the 
helm into the hand of His creatures and see where such a 
supposition leads us. For the sake of argument we will say 
that every man enters this world endowed with a will that is 
absolutely free, and that it is impossible to compel or even 
coerce him without destroying His freedom. Let us say that 
every man possesses a knowledge of right and wrong, that he 
has the power to choose between them, and that he is left en- 
tirely free to make his own choice and go his own way. Then 
what? Then it follows that man is sovereign for he does as he 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION 51 


pleases and is the architect of his own fortune. But in such 
a case we can have no assurance that ere long every man will 
reject the good and choose the evil. In such a case we have 
no guaranty against the entire human race committing moral 
suicide. Let all Divine restraints be removed and man be left 
absolutely free, and all ethical distinctions would immediate- 
ly disappear, the spirit of barbarism would prevail univer- 
sally, and pandemonium would reign supreme. Why not? 
If one nation deposes its rulers and repudiates its constitu- 
tion what is there to prevent all nations from doing the same? 
If little more than a century ago the streets of Paris ran with 
the blood of rioters, what assurance have we that before the 
present century closes every city throughout the world will 
not witness a similar sight? What is there to hinder earth- 
wide lawlessness and universal anarchy? Thus we have 
sought to show the need, the imperative need, for God to 
occupy the Throne, take the government upon His shoulder, 
and control the activities and destinies of His creatures. 

Having shown, in brief, the imperative need for God to 
reign over our world, let us now observe the fact that God 
does rifle, actually rule, and that His government extends to 
and is exercised over all things and all creatures. And, 


1. GOD GOVERNS INANIMATE MATTER, 


That God governs inanimate matter, that inanimate matter 
performs His bidding and fulfils His decrees, is clearly 
shown on the very frontispiece of Divine revelation. God 
said, Let there be light, and we read, “There was light.’ God 
said, “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together 
unto one place, and let the dry land appear,” and “at was so.” 
And again, “God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the 
herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his 
kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and tt was so.” 


52 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


As the Psalmist declares, “He spake, and it was done; He 
commanded, and it stood fast.” 

What is stated in Genesis one is afterwards illustrated all 
through the Bible. After the creation of Adam, sixteen cen- 
turies went by before ever a shower of rain fell upon the 
earth, for before Noah “there went up a mist from the earth, 
and watered the whole face of the ground” (Gen. 2:6). 
- But, when the iniquities of the antediluvians had come to the 
full, then God said, “And, behold, J, even I, do bring a flood 
of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the 
breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in 
the earth shall die;” and in fulfillment of this we read, “In 
the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, 
the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the 
fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of 
heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty 
days and forty nights” (Gen. 6:17 and 7:11, 12). 

Witness God’s absolute (and sovereign) control of inani- 
mate matter in connection with the plagues upon Egypt. At 
his bidding the light was turned into darkness and rivers into 
blood, hail fell and death came down upon the godless land of 
the Nile until even its haughty monarch was compelled to 
cry out for deliverance. Note particularly how the inspired 
record here emphasizes God’s absolute control over the ele- 
ments—‘‘And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven: 
and the Lord sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along 
upon the ground; and the Lord rained hail upon the land 
of Egypt. So there was hail, and fire mingled with the 
hail, very grievous, such as there was none like it in all the 
land of Egypt since it became a nation. And the hail smote 
throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, 
both man and beast; and the hail smote every herb of the 
field, and brake every tree of the field. Only in the land of 
Goshen, where the children of Israel were, was there no hail” 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION 353 


(Ex. 9:23-26). The same distinction was observed in con- 
nection with the ninth plague: “And the Lord said unto 
Moses, Stretch out thine hand toward heaven, that there may 
be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness which may 
be felt. And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; 
and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three 
days: They saw not one another, neither rose any from his 
place for three days: but all the children of Israel had light in 
their dwellings’ (Ex. 10:21-23). 

The above examples are by no means isolated cases. At 
God’s decree fire and brimstone descended from heaven and 
the cities of the Plain were destroyed, and a fertile valley was 
converted into a loathsome sea of death. At His bidding the 
waters of the Red Sea parted asunder so that the Israelites 
passed over dry shod, and at His word they rolled back again 
and destroyed the Egyptians who were pursuing them. A 
word from Him, and the earth opened her mouth and Korah 
and his rebellious company were swallowed up. The furnace 
of Nebuchadnezzar was heated seven times beyond its nor- 
mal temperature and into it three of God’s children were 
cast, but the fire did not so much as scorch their clothes, 
though it slew the men who cast them into it. 

What a demonstration of the Creator’s governmental con- 
trol over the elements was furnished when He became flesh 
and tabernacled among men! Behold Him asleep in the boat. 
A storm arises. The winds roar and the waves are lashed 
into fury. The disciples who are with Him, fearful lest 
their little craft should founder, awake their Master, saying, 
“Carest Thou not that we perish?” And then we read, “And 
He arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, 
be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm” 
(Mark 4:39). Mark again, the sea, at the will of its Crea- 
tor, bore Him up upon its waves; at a word from Him the 
fig-tree withered ; at His touch disease fled instantly. 


54 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


The heavenly bodies are also ruled by their Maker and per- 
form His sovereign pleasure. Take two illustrations. At 
God’s bidding the sun went back ten degrees on the dial of 
Ahaz to help the weak faith of Hezekiah. In New Testa- 
ment times God caused a star to herald the incarnation of His 
Son—the star which appeared unto the wise men of the East. 
This star, we are told, “went before them till it came and 
stood over where the young Child was” (Matt. 2:9). 

What a declaration is this—“He sendeth forth His com- 
mandment upon earth: His word runneth very swiftly. He 
giveth snow like wool: He scattereth the hoar frost like 
ashes. He casteth forth His ice like morsels: who can stand 
before His cold? He sendeth out His word, and melteth 
them: He causeth His wind to blow, and the waters flow” 
(Ps. 147:15-18). The mutations of the elements are be- 
neath God’s sovereign control. It is God who withholds the 
rain, and it is God who gives the rain when He wills, where 
He wills, as He wills, and on whom He wills. Weather 
Bureaus may attempt to give forecasts of the weather, but 
how frequently God mocks their calculations? Sun ‘spots,’ 
the varying activities of the planets, the appearing and dis- 
appearing of comets (to which abnormal weather is some- 
times attributed), atmospheric disturbances, are merely sec- 
ondary causes, for behind them all is God Himself. Let His 
Word speak once more: “And also I have withholden the 
rain from you, when there were yet three months to the har- 
vest: and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not 
to rain upon another city: one piece was rained upon, and the 
piece whereon it rained not withered. So two or three cities 
wandered unto one city, to drink water; but they were not 
satisfied: yet have ye not returned unto Me, saith the Lord. 
I have smitten you with blasting and mildew: when your gar- 
dens and your vineyards and your fig trees and your olive 
trees increased, the palmerworm devoured them: yet have ye 


EEE EE 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION = 55 


not returned unto Me, saith the Lord. I have sent among you 
the pestilence after the manner of Egypt: your young men 
have I slain with the sword, and have taken away your 
horses; and I have made the stink of your camps to come up 
unto your nostrils: yet have ye not returned unto Me, saith 
the Lord” (Amos 4:7-10). 

Truly, then, God governs inanimate matter. Earth and 
air, fire and water, hail and snow, stormy winds and angry 
seas, all perform the word of His power and fulfil His sov- 
ereign pleasure. 


2. GOD GOVERNS IRRATIONAL CREATURES. 


What a striking illustration of God’s government over the 
animal kingdom is found in Gen. 2:19! “And out of the 
ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and 
every fowl of the air: and brought them unto Adam to see 
what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every 
living creature, that was the name thereof.” Should it be 
said that this occured in Eden and took place before the fall 
of Adam and the consequent curse which was inflicted on 
every creature, then our next reference fully meets the ob- 
jection: God’s control of the beasts was again openly dis- 
played at the flood. Mark how God caused to “come unto”’ 
Noah every specie of living creature “of every living thing 
of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, 
to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 
Of fowls after their kind, of every creeping thing after his 
kind : two of every sort shall come unto thee’ (Gen. 6:19, 20) 
—all were beneath God’s sovereign control. The lion of the 
jungle, the elephant of the forest, the bear of the polar re- 
gions; the ferocious panther, the untameable wolf, the fierce 
tiger, the high-soaring eagle and the creeping crocodile—see 
them all in their native fierceness, and yet, quietly submit- 


56 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


ting to the will of their Creator, and coming two by two into 
the ark! 

Above, we referred to the plagues sent upon Egypt as 
illustrating God’s control of inanimate matter; let us now 
turn to them again to see how they demonstrate His per- 
fect rulership over irrational creatures. At His word the 
river brought forth frogs abundantly, and these frogs en- 
tered the palace of Pharaoh and the houses of his serv- 
ants and, contrary to their natural instincts, they en- 
tered the beds, the ovens and the kneadingtroughs (Ex. 
8:13). Swarms of flies invaded the land of Egypt, but 
there were no flies in the land of Goshen! (Ex. 8:22). 
Next, the cattle were stricken, and we read, “Behold, the 
hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field, 
upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon 
the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very griev- 
ous murrain. And the Lord shall sever between the cat- 
tle of Israel and the cattle of Egypt: and there shall noth- 
ing die of all that is the children’s of Israel. And the 
Lord appointed a set time, saying, Tomorrow the Lord 
shall do this thing in the land. And the Lord did that 
thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: 
but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one” 
(Ex. 9:3-6). In like manner God sent clouds of locusts 
to plague Pharaoh and his land, appointing the time of 
their visitation, determining the course and assigning the 
limits of their depredations. 

Angels are not the only ones who do God’s bidding. 
The brute beasts equally perform His pleasure. The sa- 
cred ark, the ark of the covenant, is in the country of the 
Philistines. How is it to be brought back to its home 
land? Mark the servants of God’s choice and how com- 
pletely they were beneath His control: “And the Phi- 
listines called for the priests and the diviners saying, What 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION — 57 


shall we do to the ark of the Lord? tell us wherewith we 
shall send it to his place. And they said. ... Now there- 
fore make a new cart, and take two milch kine, on which 
there hath come no yoke, and tie the kine to the cart, and 
bring their calves home from them: And take the ark of 
the Lord, and lay it upon the cart; and put the jewels of 
gold, which ye return Him for a trespass offering, in a 
coffer by the side thereof, and send it away that it may 
go. And see, if it goeth up by the way of his own coast to 
Bethshemesh, then He hath done us this great evil: but if 
not, then we shall know that it is not His hand that smote 
us; it was a chance that happened to us.” And what hap- 
pened? How striking the sequel! “And the kine took 
the straight way to the way of Bethshemesh, and went 
along the highway, lowing as they went, and turned not 
aside to the right hand or to the left’ (1 Sam. 6). Equal- 
ly striking is the case of Elijah: “And the word of the 
Lord came unto him, saying, Get thee hence, and hide 
thyself by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan. And 
it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have 
commanded the ravens to feed thee there.” (1 Kings 17: 
2-4). The natural instinct of these birds of prey was held 
in subjection and instead of consuming the food them- 
selves, they carried it to Jehovah’s servant in his solitary 
retreat. 

Is further proof required, then it is ready to hand. God 
causes a dumb ass to rebuke the prophet’s madness. He 
sends forth two she-bears from the woods to devour forty 
and two of Elijah’s tormentors. In fulfillment of His 
word, He causes the dogs to lick up the blood of the wick- 
ed Jezebel. He seals the mouths of Babylon’s lions when 
Daniel is cast into the den, though, later, He causes them 
to devour the prophet’s accusers. He prepares a great fish 
to swallow the disobedient Jonah and then, when His or- 


58 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


dained hour struck, compelled it to vomit him forth on 
dry land. At His bidding a fish carries a coin to Peter for 
tribute money, and in order to fulfil His word He makes 
the cock to crow twice after Peter’s denial. Thus we see 
that God reigns over irrational creatures: beasts of the 
field, birds of the air, fishes of the sea, all perform His 
sovereign bidding. 


3: GOD GOVERNS THE CHILDREN OF MEN. 


We fully appreciate the fact that this is the most dif- 
ficult part of our subject, and accordingly it will be dealt 
with at greater length in the pages that follow; but at pres- 
ent we consider the fact of God’s government over men in 
general, before we attempt to deal with the problem in de- 
tail. 

Two alternatives confront us and between them we are 
obliged to choose: either God governs, or He is governed; 
either God rules, or He is ruled; either God has His way, 
or men have theirs. And is our choice between these al- 
ternatives hard to make? Shall we say that in man we 
behold a creature so unruly that he is beyond God’s con- 
trol? Shall we say that sin has alienated the sinner so 
far from the thrice Holy One that he is outside the pale 
of His jurisdiction? Or, shall we say that man has been 
endowed with moral responsibility and therefore God 
must leave him entirely free, at least during the period 
of his probation? Does it necessarily follow because the 
natural man is an outlaw against heaven, a rebel against 
the Divine government, that God is unable to fulfil His 
purpose through him? We mean, not merely that He 
may overrule the effects of the actions of evil-doers, nor 
that He will yet bring the wicked to stand before His 
judgment-bar so that sentence of ptunishment may be 
passed upon them—all Christians believe these things— 


— a —— o 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION 59 


but, we mean, that every action of the most lawless of His 
subjects is entirely beneath His control, yea that the actor 
is, though unknown to himself, carrying out the secret de- 
crees of the Most High. Was it not thus with Judas? and 
is it possible to select a more extreme case? If then the 
arch-rebel was performing the counsel of God is it any 
greater tax upon our faith to believe the same of all reb- 
els? 

Our present object is not philosophic inquiry nor meta- 
physical causistry, but to ascertain the teaching of Scrip- 
ture upon this profound theme. To the law and the 
testimony, for there only can we learn of the Divine gov- 
ernment—its character, its design, its modus operandi, its 
scope. What then has it pleased God to reveal to us in 
His blessed Word concerning His rule over the works of 
His hands, and particularly, over the one who originally 
was made in His own image and likeness? 

“In Him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 
17:28). What a sweeping assertion is this! These words, 
be it noted, were addressed, not to one of the churches of 
God, not to a company of saints who had reached an ex- 
alted plane of spirituality, but to a heathen audience, to 
those who worshipped “the unknown God” and who 
“mocked” when they heard of the resurrection of, the. 
dead. And yet, to the Athenian philosophers, to the Epi- 
cureans and Stoicks, the apostle Paul did not hesitate to 
affrm that they lived and moved and had their being in 
God, which signified not only that they owed their ex- 
istence and preservation to the One who made the world 
and all things therein, but also that their very actions 
were encompassed and therefore controlled by the Lord 
of heaven and earth. 

“The disposings (margin) of the heart, and the answer 
of the tongue is from the Lord” (Prov. 16:1). Mark that 


60 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


the above declaration is of general application—it is of 
“man,” not simply of believers, that this is predicated. “A 
man’s heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his 
steps” (Prov. 16:9). If the Lord directs the steps of a 
man, is it not proof that he is being controlled or gov- 
erned by God? Again; “There are many devices in a 
man’s heart; nevertheless the counsel of the Lord, that 
shall stand” (Prov. 19:21). Can this mean anything less 
than that, no matter what man may desire and plan, it 
is the will of his Maker which is executed? As an illustra- 
tion take the “Rich Fool.” The “devices” of his heart 
are made known to us—“And he thought within him- 
self, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room 
where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: 
I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there 
I will bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say 
to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many 
years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.” Such 
were the “devices” of his heart, nevertheless it was “the 


counsel of the Lord” that stood. The “I will’s”’ of the ’ 


rich man came to nought, for “God said unto him, Thou 
fool, this night shall thy soul be required of thee” (Luke 
5 

“The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the 
rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will” 
(Pro. 21:1). What could be more explicit? Out of the 
heart are “the issues of life’ (Pro. 4:23), for as a man 
“thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Pro. 23:7). If then 
the heart is in the hand of the Lord, and if “He turneth 
it whithersoever He will,’ then is it not clear that men, 
yea, governors and rulers, and so all men, are completely 
beneath the governmental control of the Almighty! 

No limitations must be placed upon the above declara- 
tions. To insist that some men, at least, do thwart God’s 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION 61 


will and overturn His counsels is to repudiate other scrip- 
tures equally explicit. Weigh well the following: “But 
He is in one mind, and who can turn Him? and what His 
soul desireth, even that He doeth’ (Job 23:13). “The 
counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of His 
heart to all generations” (Ps. 33:11). “There is no wis- 
dom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord” 
(Pro. 21:30). “For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, 
and who shall disannul it? And His hand is stretched 
out, and who shall turn it back?” (Is. 14:27). ‘“Remem- 
ber the former things of old: for I am God, and there is 
none else! I am God, and there is none like Me, declar- 
ing the end from the beginning, and from ancient times 
the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall 
stand, and I will do all My pleasure’ (Is. 46:9, 10). 
There is no ambiguity in these passages. They affirm in 
the most unequivocal and unqualified terms that it is impos- 
sible to bring to naught the purpose of Jehovah. 

We read the Scriptures in vain if we fail to discover that 
the actions of men, evil men as well as good, are governed 
by the Lord God. Nimrod and his fellows determined to 
erect the tower of Babel, but ere their task was accomplished 
God frustrated their plans. God called Abraham “alone” 
(Is. 51:2), but his kinsfolk accompanied him as he left Ur 
of the Chaldees. Was then the will of the Lord defeated? 
Nay, verily. Mark the sequel. Terah died before Canaan 
was reached (Gen. 11:31), and though Lot accompanied 
his uncle into the land of promise, he soon separated from 
him and settled down in Sodom. Jacob was the child to 
whom the inheritance was promised, and though Isaac 
sought to reverse Jehovah’s decree and bestow the blessing 
upon Esau, his efforts came to naught. Esau again swore 
vengeance upon Jacob, but when next they met they wept 
for joy instead of fighting in hate. The brethren of Joseph 


62 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


determined his destruction, but their evil counsels were over- 
thrown. Pharaoh refused to let Israel carry out the instruc- 
tions of Jehovah and perished in the Red Sea for his pains. 
Balak hired Balaam to curse the Israelites, but God com- 
pelled him to bless them. Haman erected a gallows for 
Mordecai but was hanged upon it himself. Jonah resisted 
the revealed will of God, but what became of his efforts? 

Mark, too, the sovereignty which God displayed in His 
dealings with men! Moses who was slow of speech, and 
not Aaron his elder brother who was not slow of speech, 
was the one chosen to be His ambassador in demanding 
from Egypt’s monarch the release of His oppressed people. 
Moses again, though greatly beloved utters one hasty word 
and was excluded from Canaan; whereas Elijah, passion- 
ately murmurs and suffers but a mild rebuke and was after- 
wards taken to heaven without seeing death. Uzzah merely 
touched the ark and was instantly slain, whereas the Phil- 
istines carried it off in insulting triumph and suffered no 
immediate harm. Displays of grace which would have 
brought a doomed Sodom to repentance, failed to move an 
highly privileged Capernaum. Mighty works which would 
have subdued Tyre and Sidon left the upbraided cities of 
Galilee under the curse of a rejected Gospel. If they would 
have saved the former, why were they not wrought there? 
If they proved ineffectual to deliver the latter then why 
perform them? What exhibitions are these of the sover- 
eign will of the Most High! 


4. GOD GOVERNS ANGELS: BOTH GOOD AND EVIL ANGELS. 


The angels are God’s servants, His messengers, His char- 
iots. They ever hearken to the word of His mouth and do 
His commands. “And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem 
to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the Lord beheld, 
and He repented Him of the evil, and said to the angel 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION ~ 63 


that destroyed, It is enough, Stay now thine hand... . 
And the Lord commanded the angel; and he put his sword 
again into the sheath thereof” (1 Chron. 21:15, 27). Many 
other scriptures might be cited to show that the angels are 
in subjection to the will of their Creator and perform His 
bidding—‘“‘And when Peter was come to himself, he said, 
Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent His angel, 
and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod” (Acts 
12:11). “And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His 
angel to shew unto His servants the things which must 
shortly be done” (Rev. 22:6). So it will be when our Lord 
returns: “The Son of Man shall send forth His angels and 
they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, 
and them which do iniquity” (Matt. 13:41). Again, we 
read, “He shall send His angels with a great sound of a 
trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the 
four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Matt. 
Aca). 

The same is true of evil spirits: they, too, fulfil God’s 
sovereign decrees. An evil spirit is sent by God to stir up 
rebellion in the camp of Abimelech: “Then God sent an 
evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem, 
which aided him in the killing of his brethren” (Judges 
9:23). Another evil spirit He sent to be a lying spirit in 
the mouth of Ahab’s prophets—‘“Now therefore, behold, the 
Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy 
prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee” 
(1 Kings 22:23). And yet another was sent by the Lord 
to trouble Saul—“But the Spirit of the Lord departed 
from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him” 
(1 Sam. 16:14). So, too, in the New Testament: a whole 
legion of the demons go not out of their victim until the 
Lord gave them permission to enter the herd of swine. 

It is clear from Scripture, then, that the angels, good and 


64 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


evil, are under God’s control, and willingly or unwillingly 
carry out God’s purpose. Yea, SATAN himself is abso- 
lutely subject to God’s control. When arraigned in Eden, 
he listened to the awful sentence, but answered not a word. 
He was unable to touch Job until God granted him leave. 
So, too, he had to gain our Lord’s consent before he could 
“sift”? Peter. When Christ commanded him to depart—“‘Get 
thee hence, Satan’”—we read, “Then the Devil leaveth Him” 
(Matt. 4:11). And, in the end, he will be cast into the 
Lake of Fire, which has been prepared for him and his 
angels. 

The Lord God omnipotent reigneth. His government is 
exercised over inanimate matter, over the brute beasts, over 
the children of men, over angels good and evil, and over 
Satan himself. No revolving world, no shining of star, no 
storm, no creature moves, no actions of men, no errands 
of angels, no deeds of Devil—nothing in all the vast universe 
can come to pass otherwise than God has eternally pur- 
posed. Here is a foundation for faith. Here is a resting 
place for the intellect. Here is an anchor for the soul, both 
sure and steadfast. It is not blind fate, unbridled evil, man 
or Devil, but the Lord Almighty who is ruling the world, 
ruling it according to His own good pleasure and for His 
own eternal glory. 


“Ten thousand ages ere the skies 

Were into motion brought; 

All the long years and worlds to come, 
Stood present to His thought: 

There’s not a sparrow nor a worm, 
But’s found in His decrees, 

He raises monarchs to their thrones 
And sinks as He may please.” 


CHAPTER FOUR. 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION. 


“O the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! 
how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out.” 
Romans II :33. 


at 


‘ ine i he ‘ 
* 4 if 


Ln Y he 
SL ae 
Re, 
Sts 
i 
- ‘ ~~ 
/ Nim" 
. 
~ . 4 - 
aw E> x 
4 j : 
<4 
j . 
, ‘ 
. i] 
i —~\% — 
ae oe ae 
a “a4 
te) ae ei 
VW) 
t 
<s 
: 
. 
ry 
; 
* 
; 
‘ 1 
i eis 
+ : 
<0 i 
¥ oo 
erm ss | 
‘ v# 
. on ee 
t i? 
f ‘ 
: 
< 
7 \ 
7 
. 
, 
’ 
i 
‘ 
‘ 
} 
FZ, = 
vi ; 
=f te 


A) ta 


IV. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION. 


CGPRALVATION is of the Lord” (Jonah 2:9); but the 
Ta) Lord does not save all. Why not? He does save 
Ny, some, many, yea “a great multitude which no man 
could number.” Then if He saves some, why not others? 
Is it because they are too sinful and depraved? No; for 
the apostle wrote, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of 
all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to 
save sinners; of whom I am chief” (1 Tim. 1:15). There- 
fore, if God saved the “chief” of sinners, none are excluded 
because of their depravity. Why then does not God save 
all? Is it because some are too stony-hearted to be won? 
No; because of the most stony-hearted people of all it is 
written that God will yet “take the stony heart out of their 
flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh” (Ezek. 11:19). 
Then is it because some are so stubborn, so intractable, so 
defiant that God is unable to woo them to Himself? Before 
we answer this question let us ask another; let us appeal to 
the experience of the Christian reader. 

Friend; was there not a time when you walked in the 
counsel of the ungodly, stood in the way of sinners, sat in 
the seat of scorners, and with them said, “We will not have 
this Man to reign over us” (Luke 19:14)? Was there 
not a time when you “would not come to Christ that you 
might have life’ (John 5:40)? Yea, was there not a time 
when you mingled your voice with those who said unto 
God, “Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of 
Thy ways. What is the Almighty, that we should serve 
Him? and what profit should we have, if we pray unto 
Him?” (Job 21:14,15)? With shamed face you have to 


68 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


acknowledge there was. But how is it that all is now 
changed? What was it that brought you from haughty 
self-sufficiency to a humble supplicant, from one that was 
at enmity with God to one that is at peace with Him, from 
lawlessness to subjection, from hate to love? And, as one 
‘born of the Spirit,’ you will readily reply, “By the grace of 
God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10). Then do you not 
see that it is due to no lack of power in God, nor to His 
refusal to coerce man, that other rebels are not saved too? 
If God was able to subdue your will and win your heart, 
and that without interfering with your moral responsibility, 
then is He not able to do the same for others? Assuredly 
He is. Then how foolish, how inconsistent, how illogical 
of you to seek to account for the present course of the 
wicked and their ultimate fate by arguing that God is unable 
to save them, that they will not let Him. Do you say, “But 
the time came when J was willing, willing to receive Christ 
as my Saviour’? True, but it was the Lord who made you 
willing, why then does He not make all sinners willing? 
Why, but for the fact that He is sovereign and does as He 
pleases! But to return to our opening inquiry. 

Why is it that all are not saved, particularly, all who 
hear the Gospel? Do you still answer, Because the majority 
refuse to believe? Well, that is true, but it is only a part 
of the truth. It is the truth from the human side. But 
there is a Divine side too, and this side of the truth needs 
to be stressed or God will be robbed of His glory. The 
unsaved are lost because they refuse to believe; the oth- 
ers are saved because they believe. But why do these oth- 
ers believe? What is it that causes them to put their 
trust in Christ? Is it because they are more intelligent 
than their fellows and quicker to discern their need of salva- 
tion? Perish the thought—“Who maketh thee to differ 
from another? And what hast thou that thou didst not 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 69 


receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, 
as if thou hadst not received it?” (1 Cor. 4:7). It is God 
Himself who maketh the difference between the elect and 
the non-elect, for of His own it is written, “And we know 
that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an under- 
standing, that we may know Him that is true” (1 John 
5:20). 

Faith is God’s gift and “all men have not faith” (2 Thess. 
3:2); therefore we see that God does not bestow this gift 
upon all. Upon whom then does He bestow this saving 
favor? And we answer, upon His own elect—‘‘As many 
as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). 
Hence it is that we read of “the faith of God’s elect” (Titus 
1:1). But is God partial in the distribution of His favors? 
Has He not the right to be? Are there still some who 
‘murmur against the Good-Man of the house’? Then His 
own words are sufficient reply—‘“Is it not lawful for Me 
to do what I will with Mine own?” (Matt. 20:15). God 
is sovereign in the bestowment of His gifts both in the 
natural and in the spiritual realms. So much then for a 
general statement, and now to particularize. 


1. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD THE FATHER IN SALVATION. 


Perhaps the one scripture which most emphatically of all 
asserts the absolute sovereignty of God in connection with 
His determining the destiny of His creatures is the ninth 
of Romans. We shall not attempt to review here the entire 
chapter, but will confine ourselves to vv. 21-23—“Hath not 
the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make 
one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What 
if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power 
known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of 
wrath fitted to destruction: And that He might make known 
the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He 


70 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


had afore prepared unto glory?” These verses represent 
fallen mankind as inert and impotent as a lump of lifeless 
clay. This scripture evidences that there is “no difference,” 
in themselves, between the elect and the non-elect: they 
are clay of “the same lump,” which agrees with Eph. 2:3 
where we are told that all are by nature “children of wrath.” 
It teaches us that the ultimate destiny of every individual 
is decided by the will of God, and blessed it is that such be 
the case; if it were left to our wills the ultimate destination 
of us all would be the Lake of Fire. It declares that God 
Himself does make a difference in the respective destinations 
to which He assigns His creatures, for one vessel is made 
“unto honor and another unto dishonor ;” some are “vessels 
of wrath fitted to destruction,” others are “vessels of mercy, 
which He had afore prepared unto glory.” 

We readily acknowledge that it is very humbling to the 
proud heart of the creature to behold all mankind in the 
hand of God as the clay is in the potter’s hand, yet this is 
precisely how the Scriptures of Truth represent the case. 
In this day of human boasting, intellectual pride, and deifica- 
tion of man, it needs to be insisted upon that the potter 
forms his vessels for himself and not for his vessels. . Let 
man strive with his Maker as he will, the fact remains that 
he is nothing more than clay in the heavenly Potter’s hands, 
and while we know that God will deal justly with His 
creatures, that the Judge of all the earth will do right, 
nevertheless, He shapes His vessels for His own purposes 
and according to His own pleasure. God claims the indis- 
putable right to do as He wills with His own. 

Not only has God the right to do as He wills with the 
creatures of His own hands, but He exercises this right, 
and nowhere is this seen more plainly than in His pre- 
destinating grace. Before the foundation of the world God 
made a choice, a selection, an election. Before His omnis- 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 71 


cient eye stood the whole of Adam’s race, and from it He 
singled out a people and predestinated them “unto the 
adoption of children,” predestinated them ‘“‘to be conformed 
to the image of His Son,” “ordained” them unto eternal life. 
Many are the scriptures which set forth this blessed truth, 
seven of which will now engage our attention. 

“As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed” 
(Acts 13:48). Every artifice of human ingenuity has been 
employed to blunt the sharp edge of this scripture and to 
explain away the obvious meaning of these words, but it 
has been employed in vain, though nothing will ever be 
able to reconcile this and similar passages to the mind of the 
natural man. “As many as were ordained to eternal life 
believed.” Here we learn four things: First, that believ- 
ing is the consequence and not the cause of God’s decree. 
Second, that a limited number only are “ordained to eternal 
life,’ for if all men without exception were thus ordained 
by God, then the words “as many as” are a meaningless 
qualification. Third, that this “ordination” of God is not 
to mere external privileges but to “eternal life,’’ not to 
service but to salvation itself. Fourth, that all—‘‘as many 
as,’ not one less—who are thus ordained by God to eternal 
life will most certainly believe. 

The comments of the beloved Spurgeon on the above 
passage are well worthy of our notice. Said he, “Attempts 
have been made to prove that these words do not teach pre- 
destination, but these attempts so clearly do violence to 
language that I shall not waste time in answering them. 
I read: ‘As many as were ordained to eternal life believed’ 
and I shall not twist the text but shall glorify the grace of 
God by ascribing to that grace the faith of every man. Is 
it not God who gives the disposition to believe? If men 
are disposed to have eternal life, does not He—in every 
case—dispose them? Is it wrong for God to give Grace? 


72 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


If it be right for Him to give it, is it wrong for Him to 
purpose to give it?) Would you have Him give it by acci- 
dent? If it is right for Him to purpose to give grace today, 
it was right for Him to purpose it before today—and, since 
He changes not—from eternity.” 

“Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant 
according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then 
it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. 
But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise 
work is no more work” (Rom. 11:5, 6). The words “Even 
so’ at the beginning of this quotation refer us to the pre- 
vious verse where we are told, “I have reserved to Myself 
seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 
Note particularly the word “reserved.” In the days of 
Elijah there were seven thousand—a small minority—-who 
were Divinely preserved from idolatry and brought to the 
knowledge of the true God. This preservation and illumina- 
tion was not from anything in themselves, but solely by 
God’s special influence and agency. How highly favored 
such individuals were to be thus “reserved” by God! Now 
says the apostle, Just as there was a “remnant” in Elijah’s 
days “reserved by God” even so there is now in this present 
dispensation. 

“A remnant according to the election of grace.” Here 
the cause of election is traced back to its source. The basis 
upon which God elected this “remnant” was not faith 
foreseen in them because a choice founded upon the fore- 
sight of good works is just as truly made on the ground of 
works as any choice can be, and in such a case it would 
not be “of grace,’ for, says the apostle, “if by grace, then 
it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace,” 
which means that grace and works are opposites, they have 
nothing in common, and will no more mingle than will oil 
and water. Thus the idea of inherent good foreseen in 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 73 


those chosen or of anything meritorious performed by them 
is rigidly excluded. “A remnant according to the election 
of grace” signifies an unconditional choice resulting from 
the sovereign favor of God; in a word, it is absolutely a 
gratuitous election. 

“For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many 
wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, 
are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the 
world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak 
things of the world to confound the things which are 
mighty: and base things of the world, and things which 
are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are 
not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should 
glory in His presence” (1 Cor. 1:26-29). Three times 
over in this passage reference is made to God’s choice, and 
choice necessarily supposes a selection, the taking of some 
and the leaving of others. The Choser here is God Himself, 
as said the Lord Jesus to the apostles, “Ye have not chosen 
Me, but I have chosen you” (John 15:16). The number 
chosen is strictly defined—‘“not many wise men after the 
flesh, not many noble,” etc., which agrees with Matt. 20:16, 
“So the last shall be first, and the first last; for many be 
called, but few chosen.” So much then for the fact of God’s 
choice; now mark the objects of His choice. 

The ones spoken of above as chosen of God are “the 
weak things of the world, base things of the world, and 
things which are despised.” But why? To demonstrate 
and magnify His grace. God’s ways as well as His thoughts 
are utterly at variance with man’s. The carnal mind would 
have supposed that a selection had been made from the 
ranks of the opulent and influential, the amiable and cul- 
tured, so that Christianity might have won the approval and 
applause of the world by its pageantry and fleshly glory. 
Ah! but “that which is highly esteemed among men is 


74 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


abomination in the sight of God” (Luke 16:15). God 
chooses the “base things.” He did so in Old Testament 
times. The nation which He singled out to be the depository 
of His holy oracles and the channel through which the 
promised Seed should come, was not the ancient Egyptians, 
the imposing Babylonians, nor the highly civilized and cul- 
tured Greeks. No; that people upon whom Jehovah set 
His love and regarded as ‘the apple of His eye’ were 
the despised, nomadic Hebrews. So it was when our Lord 
tabernacled among men. The ones whom He took into 
favored intimacy with Himself and commissioned to go 
forth as His ambassadors were, for the most part, unlet- 
tered fishermen. And so it has been ever since. So it is 
today: at the present rates of increase, it will not be long 
before the Lord has more in despised China who are really 
His, than He has in the highly favored U. S. A.; more 
among the uncivilized blacks of Africa than He has in cul- 
tured (?) Germany! And the purpose of God’s choice, the 
raison d’etre of the selection He has made is “that no flesh 
should glory in His presence’”—there being nothing what- 
ever in the objects of His choice which should entitle them 
to His special favors, then all the praise will be freely 
ascribed to the exceeding riches of His manifoid grace. 
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in the heav- 
enlies in Christ: According as He hath chosen us in Him 
before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy 
and without blame before Him; In love having predes- 
tinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ 
to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will. 
- . In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being 
predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh 
all things after the counsel of His own will” (Eph. 1 23-5, 
11). Here again we are told at what point in time—if 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 75 


time it could be called—when God made choice of those 
who were to be His children by Jesus Christ. It was not 
after Adam had fallen and plunged his race into sin and 
wretchedness, but long ere Adam saw the light, even before 
the world itself was founded, that God chose us in Christ. 
Here also we learn the purpose which God had before Him 
in connection with His own elect: it was that they “should 
be holy and without blame before Him;” it was “unto the 
adoption of children;” it was that they should “obtain an 
inheritance.” Here also we discover the motive which 
prompted Him. It was “in love that He predestinated us 
unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself” 
—a statement which refutes the oft made and wicked charge 
that for God to decide the eternal destiny of His creatures 
before they are born is tyrannical and unjust; finally, we 
are informed here, that in this matter He took counsel with 
none, but that we are “predestined according to the good 
pleasure of His will.” 

“But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, 
brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from. the 
beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of 
the Spirit and belief of the truth” (2 Thess. 2:13). There 
are three things here which deserve special attention. First, 
the fact that we are expressly told that God’s elect are “chosen 
to salvation.” Language could not be more explicit. How 
summarily do these words dispose of the sophistries and 
equivocations of all who would make election refer to noth- 
ing but external privileges or rank in service! It is to 
“salvation” itself that God hath chosen us. Second, we 
are warned here that election unto salvation does not dis- 
regard the use of appropriate means: salvation is reached 
through “sanctification of the Spirit and belief ‘of the 
truth.” It is not true that because God has chosen a cer- 
tain one to salvation that he will be saved willy-nilly, 


76 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


whether he believes or not: nowhere do the scriptures so 
represent it. The same God who predestined the end, also 
appointed the means; the same God who “chose unto salva- 
tion” decreed that His purpose should be realized through 
the work of the Spirit and belief of the truth. Third, that 
God has chosen us unto salvation is a profound cause for 
fervent praise. Note how strongly the apostle expresses 
this—“we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, 
brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the 
beginning chosen you to salvation,” etc. Instead of shrink- 
ing back in horror from the doctrine of predestination the 
believer when he sees this blessed truth as it is unfolded 
in the Word, discovers a ground for gratitude and thanks- 
giving such as nothing else affords save the unspeakable 
gift of the Redeemer Himself. 

“Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, 
not according to our works, but according to His own pur- 
pose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before 
the world began” (2 Tim. 1:9). How plain and pointed is 
the language of Holy Writ! It is man who, by his words, 
darkeneth counsel. It is impossible to state the case more 
clearly, or stronger, than it is stated here. Our salvation 
is not “according to our works;” that is to say, it is not 
due to anything in us nor the rewarding of anything from 
us; instead, it is the result of God’s own “purpose and 
grace,” and this grace was given us in Christ Jesus before 
the world began. It is by grace we are saved, and in the 
purpose of God this grace was bestowed upon us not only 
before we saw the light, not only before Adam’s fall, but 
even before that far distant “beginning” of Genesis 1:1. 
And herein lies the unassailable comfort of God’s people. 
If His choice has been from eternity it will last to eternity ! 
“Nothing can survive to eternity but what came from 
eternity, and what has so come, will” (G. S. Bishop). 


rte. 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 77 


“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, 
through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and 
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ’? (1 Peter 1:2). 
Here again election by the Father precedes the work of the 
Holy Spirit in and the obedience of faith by those who 
are saved, thus taking it entirely off creature ground and 
resting it in the sovereign pleasure of the Almighty. The 
“foreknowledge of God the Father” does not here refer to 
His prescience of all things but signifies that the saints were 
all eternally present in Christ before the mind of God. God 
did not “foreknow” that certain ones who heard the Gospel 
would believe it apart from the fact that He had “ordained” 
these certain ones to eternal life. ‘What God’s prescience 
saw in all men was love of sin and hatred of Himself. The 
“foreknowledge” of God is based upon His own decrees as 
is clear from Acts 2:23—‘‘Him, being delivered by the 
determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have 
taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain”—note 
the order here: first God’s “determinate counsel” (His 
decree), and second His “foreknowledge.” So it is again 
in Rom. 8:28, 29, “For whom He did foreknow, He also 
did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son,” 
but the first word here, “for,” looks back to the preceding 
verse and the last clause of it reads “to them who are the 
called according to His purpose’’—these are the ones whom 
He did “foreknow and predestinate.” Finally, it needs 
to be pointed out that when we read in Scripture of God 
“knowing” certain people the word is used in the sense of 
knowing with approbation and love, “But if any man love 
God, the same is known of Him” (1 Cor. 8:3). To the 
_hypocrites Christ will yet say “I never knew you’”—He 
never loved them. “Elect according to the foreknowledge 
of God the Father” signifies, then, chosen by Him as the 
special objects of His approbation and love. 


78 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


Summarizing the teaching of these seven passages we 
learn that God has “ordained to eternal life’ certain ones, 
and that in consequence of His ordination they, in due 
time, “believe;” that God’s ordination to salvation of His 
own elect is not due to any good thing in them nor to any- 
thing meritorious from them, but solely of His “grace; 
that God has designedly selected the most unlikely objects 
to be the recipients of His special favors in order that ‘“‘no 
flesh should glory in His presence;’ that God chose His 
people in Christ before the foundation of the world not 
because they were so but in order that they “should be holy 
and without blame before him”; that having selected cer- 
tain ones to salvation He also decreed the means by which 
His eternal counsel should be made good; that the very 
“grace” by which we are saved was, in God’s purpose, . 
“given us in Christ Jesus before the world began;” that 
long before they were actually created, God’s elect stood 
present before His mind, were “foreknown” by Him, i.e., 
were the definite objects of His eternal love. 

Before turning to the next division of this chapter a 
further word concerning the subjects of God’s predestinat- 
ing grace. We go over this ground again because it is at 
this point that the doctrine of God’s sovereignty in pre- 
destining certain ones to salvation is most frequently as- 
saulted. Perverters of this truth invariably seek to find 
some cause outside God’s own will which moves Him to 
bestow salvation on sinners ; something or other is attributed 
to the creature which entitles him to receive mercy at the 
hands of the Creator. We return then to the question, Why 
did God choose the ones He did? 

What was there in the elect themselves which attracted 
God’s heart to them? Was it because of certain virtues 
they possessed? because they were generous-hearted, 
sweet-tempered, truth-speaking? in a word, because they 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 79 


were “good,” that God chose them? No; for our Lord 
said, “There is none good but one, that is God” (Matt. 
19:17). Was it because of any good works they had 
performed?* No; for it is written, “There is none that 
doeth good, no, not one’ (Rom. 3:12). Was it because 
they evidenced an earnestness and zeal in inquiring after 
God? No; for it is written again, “There is none that 
seeketh after God” (Rom. 3:11). Was it because God 
foresaw they would believe? No; for how can those who 
are “dead in trespasses and sins” believe in Christ? How 
could God foreknow some men as believers when belief 
was impossible to them? Scripture declares that we “‘be- 
lieve through grace” (Acts 18:27). Faith is God’s gift, and 
apart from this gift none would believe. The cause of His 
choice then lies within Himself and not in the objects of 
His choice. He chose the ones He did simply because He 
chose to choose them. 


“Sons we are by God’s election 

Who on Jesus Christ believe, 

By eternal destination, 

Sovereign grace we now receive, 
Lord Thy mercy, 

Doth both grace and glory give!” 


2. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GoD THE SON IN SALVATION. 


For whom did Christ die? It surely does not need ar- 
guing that the Father had an express purpose in giving 
Him to die, or that God the Son had a definite design be- 
fore Him in laying down His life—‘Known unto God 
are all His works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 
15:18). What then was the purpose of the Father and 
the design of the Son? If we consider this question—For 
whom did Christ die?—irrespective of the purpose of the 
Father and the Son as to the objects who should be saved 
through that death, and look merely at what that death 


80 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


in itself was sufficient for and declared in the Gospel 
adapted to, then it is scriptural to answer, He died for 
sinners as sinners—‘This is a faithful saying, and worthy 
of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world 
to save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15). But, if the question be 
looked at with respect to the purpose of the Father in 
giving His Son to die, and to the design of Christ in lay- 
ing down His life, then the answer must be, He died for 
the elect only. 

We are not unmindful-of the fact that the limited de- 
sign in the death of Christ has been the subject of much 
controversy—what great truth revealed in Scripture has 
not? Nor do we forget that anything which has to do 
with the person and work of our blessed Lord requires to 
be handled with the utmost reverence, and that a “Thus 
saith the Lord’ must be given in support of every asser- 
tion we make. Our appeal shall be to the Law and the 
Testimony. 

Before we attempt to substantiate the closing sentences 
of the first paragraph above, we would carefully guard 
against a mis-conception. The point we are about to dis- 
cuss does not in anywise call in question the value and 
sufficiency of our Lord’s atoning sacrifice. The obedience 
and suffering of Christ were of infinite value in the eye 
of the Law and in the estimate of God. The blood of God’s 
“Lamb” was “precious,” precious beyond computation, 
for it was the blood of “The Lord of Glory.”’ Therefore 
we say that so far as the value of Christ’s sacrifice is con- 
cerned it is sufficient for the redemption of the entire hu- 
man race and that did all mankind put their trust in it 
all would be saved by its efficacy. Furthermore; we freely 
and gladly acknowledge that the death of Christ opened 
a way whereby God can, consistently with His justice, re- 
ceive any and every sinner who comes to Him by Christ: 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 81 


the glory of the Gospel is that God can “be just and the 
justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Rom. 2326). 
It is in view of these two facts that a bona fide offer of sal- 
vation is to be made to “every creature.” Having said this 
much let us now proceed with our original inquiry. 

For whom did Christ die? Who were the ones He in- 
tended to redeem by His blood-shedding? Surely the 
Lord Jesus had some absolute determination before Him 
when He went to the Cross. If He had then it necessarily 
follows that the extent of that purpose was limited, be- 
cause an absolute determination or purpose must be effect- 
ed. If the absolute determination of Christ included all 
mankind, then all mankind would most certainly be saved. 
To escape this inevitable conclusion many have affirmed 
that there was no such absolute determination before 
Christ, that in His death a merely conditional provision 
of salvation has been made for all mankind. The refuta- 
tion of this assertion is found in the promises made by the 
Father to His Son before He went to the cross, yea, before 
He became incarnate. The Old Testament Scriptures rep- 
resent the Father as promising the Son a certain reward 
for His sufferings on behalf of sinners. At this stage we 
shall confine ourselves to one or two statements recorded 
in the well known fifty-third of Isaiah. There we find 
God saying, “When Thou shalt make His soul an offering 
for sin, He shall see His seed,” that “He shall see of the 
travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied,’ and that God’s 
righteous Servant “should justify many” (vv. Io and Ir). 
But here we would pause and ask, How could it be certain 
that Christ should “see His seed” and “see of the travail 
of His soul and be satisfied” unless the salvation of cer- 
tain members of the human race had been Divinely de- 
creed and therefore was sure? How could it be certain 
that Christ should “justify many” if no effectual provi- 


82 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


sion was made that any should receive Him as their Sa- 
viour? On the other hand, to insist that the Lord Jesus 
did expressly purpose the salvation of all mankind is to 
charge Him with that which no intelligent being should be 
guilty of, namely, to design that which by virtue of His 
omniscience He knew would never come to pass. Hence, the 
only alternative left us is that so far as the pre-determined 
purpose of His death is concerned, Christ died for the elect 
only. Summing up in a sentence which we trust will be 
intelligible to every reader we would say, Christ died not 
merely to make possible the salvation of all mankind, but 
to make certain the salvation of all that the Father had given 
to Him. . 
The limited design in the Atonement follows, necessarily, 
from the eternal choice of the Father of certain ones unto 
salvation. The Scriptures inform us that, before the Lord 
became incarnate He said, “Lo, I come, to do Thy will O 
God” (Heb. 10:7), and after Tle had become incarnate He 
declared, “For I came down from heaven, not to do Mine 
own will, but the will of Him that sent Me” (John 6: 
38). If then God had from the beginning chosen certain 
ones to salvation, then, because the will of Christ was in 
perfect accord with the will of the Father, He would not 
seek to enlarge upon His election. What we have just said 
is not merely a plausible deduction of our own, but is in 
strict harmony with the express teaching of the Word. 
Again and again our Lord referred to those whom the 
Father had “given” Him and concerning whom He was 
particularly exercised. Said He, “All that the Father giv- 
eth Me shall come to Me; and him that cometh to Me I will 
in no wise cast out. . . . And this is the Father’s will which 
hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should 
lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day” 
(John 6:37, 39). And again, “These words spake Jesus, 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 83 


and lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour 
is come; glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son also may glorify 
Thee; As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He 
should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him. 
_. . [have manifested Thy name unto the men which Thou 
gavest Me out of the world: Thine they were, and Thou 


gavest them Me; and they have kept Thy Word. . . . I pray 
for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which 
Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine... . Father, I 


will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me 
where I am; that they may behold My glory, which Thou 
hast given Me: for Thou lovest Me before the foundation 
of the world” (John 17:1, 2,6,9, 24). Before the founda- 
tion of the world the Father predestinated a people to be 
conformed to the image of His Son, and the death and res- 
urrection of the Lord Jesus was in order to the carrying 
out of the Divine purpose. 

The very nature of the Atonement evidences that, in its 
application to sinners, it was limited in the purpose of God. 
The Atonement of Christ may be considered from two chief 
viewpoints—Godward and manward. Godwards, the 
Cross-work of Christ was a propitiation, an appeasing of 
Divine wrath, a satisfaction rendered to Divine justice and 
holiness; manwards, it was a substitution, the Innocent 
taking the place of the guilty, the Just dying for the unjust. 
But a strict substitution of a Person for persons, and the 
infliction upon Him of voluntary sufferings, involve the 
definite recognition on the part of the Substitute and of the 
One He is to propitiate of the persons for whom He acts, 
whose sins He bears, whose legal obligations He discharges. 
Furthermore, if the Law-giver accepts the satisfaction 
which is made by the Substitute then those for whom the 
Substitute acts, whose place He takes, must necessarily be 
acquitted. If I am in debt and unable to discharge it and 


84 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


another comes forward and pays my creditor in full and 
receives a receipt in acknowledgment then, in the sight of 
the law, my creditor no longer has any claim upon me. On 
the Cross the Lord Jesus gave Himself a ransom, and that 
it was accepted by God was attested by the open grave three 
days later; the question then we would now raise is, For 
whom was this ransom offered? If it was offered for all 
mankind then the debt incurred by every man has been can- 
celled. If Christ bore in His own body on the tree the sins 
of all men without exception, then none will perish. If 
Christ was “made a curse” for all of Adam’s race then none 
are now “under condemnation.” ‘Payment God cannot 
twice demand, first at my bleeding Surety’s hand and then 
again at mine.” But Christ did not discharge the debt of 
all men without exception, for some there are who will be 
“cast into prison” (cf. 1 Pet. 3:19 where the same Greek 
word for “prison” occurs) and they shall “by no means 
come out thence, till they have paid the uttermost farthing” 
(Matt. 5:26), which, of course, will be never. Christ did 
not bear the sins of all mankind for some there are who “die 
in their sins’ (John 8:21) and whose “sin remaineth” 
(John 9:41). Christ was not “made a curse” for all of 
Adam’s race, for some there are to whom He will yet say, 
“Depart from Me ye cursed” (Matt. 25:41). To say that 
Christ died for all alike, to say that He became the Substi- 
tute and Surety of the whole human race, to say that He 
suffered on behalf of and in the stead of all mankind, is to 
say that He “bore the curse for many who are now bearing 
the curse for themselves; that He suffered punishment for 
many who are now lifting up their own eyes in Hell, being 
in torments; that He paid the redemption price for many 
who shall yet pay in their own eternal anguish ‘the wages of 
sin, which is death’” (G. S. Bishop). But, on the other 
hand, to say as Scripture says, that Christ was stricken for 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 85 


the transgressions of God’s people, to say that He gave His 
life for the sheep, to say that He gave His life a ransom for 
many, is to say that He made an atonement which fully 
atones; is to say He paid a price which actually ransoms; is 
to say He was set forth a propitiation which really pro- 
pitiates ; is to say He is a Saviour who truly saves. 

Closely connected with and confirmatory of what we have 
said above is the teaching of Scripture concerning our 
Lord’s priesthood. It is as the great High Priest that Christ 
now makes intercession. But for whom does He intercede? 
for the whole human race, or only for His own people? The 
answer furnished by the New Testament to this question is 
clear as a sunbeam. Our Saviour has entered into heaven 
itself “now to appear in the presence of God for us’ (Heb. 
9:24) that is, for those who are “partakers of the heavenly 
calling’ (Heb. 3:1). And again it is written, “Wherefore 
He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto 
God by. Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for 
them” (Heb. 7:25). This is in strict accord with the Old 
Testament type. After slaying the sacrificial animal, Aaron 
went into the holy of holies as the representative and on 
behalf of the people of God: it was the names of Israel's 
tribes which were engraven on his breastplate, and it was 
in their interests he appeared before God. Agreeably to 
this are our Lord’s words in John 17:9—“I pray for them: 
I pray not for the world, but for them which Thou hast 
given Me; for they are Thine.” Another scripture which 
deserves careful attention in this connection is found in 
Romans 8. In verse 33 the question is asked, “Who shall 
lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?” and then follows 
the inspired answer—‘“It is God that justifieth. Who is he 
that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather that 
is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who 
also maketh intercession for us.” Note particularly that the 


86 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


death and intercession of Christ have one and the same 
objects! As it was in the type so it is with the antitype— 
expiation and supplication are co-e.xrtensive. If then Christ 
intercedes for the elect only and “not for the world,” then 
He died for them only. And observe further that the death, 
resurrection, exaltation and intercession of the Lord Jesus 
are here assigned as the reason why none can lay any 
“charge” against God’s elect. Let those who would still take 
issue with what we are advancing weigh carefully the fol- 
lowing question—If the death of Christ extends equally to 
all, how does it become security against a “charge,” seeing 
that all who believe not are “under condemnation”? (John 
sei 83); 

The number of those who share the benefits of Christ’s 
death is determined not only by the nature of the Atonement 
and the priesthood of Christ but also by His power. Grant 
that the One who died upon the cross was God manifest in 
the flesh and it follows inevitably that what Christ has pur- 
posed that will He perform; that what He has purchased that 
will He possess; that what He has-set His heart upon that 
will He secure. If the Lord Jesus possesses all power in 
heaven and earth then none can successfully resist His’ will. 
But it may be said, This is true in the abstract, nevertheless, 
Christ refuses to exercise this power inasmuch as He will 
never force anyone to receive Him as their Saviour. In one 
sense that is true, but in another sense it is positively untrue. 
The salvation of any sinner is a matter of Divine power. 
By nature the sinner as at enmity with God and naught 
but Divine power operating within him, can overcome this 
enmity; hence it is written, “No man can come unto Me, 
except the Father which hath sent Me draw him” (John 6: 
44). It is the Divine power overcoming the sinner’s innate 
enmity which makes him willing to come to Christ that 
he might have life. But this “enmity” is not overcome in 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 87 


all—_why? Is it because the enmity is too strong to be 
overcome? Are there some hearts so steeled against Him 
that Christ is wnable to gain entrance? To answer in the 
affirmative is to deny His omnipotence. In the final analy- 
sis it is not a question of the sinner’s willingness or unwil- 
lingness, for by nature all are unwilling. Willingness to 
come to Christ is the finished product of Divine power 
operating on the human heart and will in overcoming man’s 
inherent and chronic “enmity,” as it is written, “Thy people 
shall be willing in the day of Thy power’ (Ps. 110:3). To 
say that Christ is wnable to win to Himself those who are 
unwilling is to deny that all power in heaven and earth is 
His. To say that Christ cannot put forth His power with- 
out destroying man’s responsibility is a begging of the ques- 
tion here raised, for He has put forth His power and made 
willing those who have come to Him, and if He did this 
without destroying their responsibility why “cannot” He do 
so with others? If He is able to win the heart of one sinner 
to Himself, why not that of another? To say, as is usually 
said, the others will not let Him is to impeach His suff- 
ciency. It is a question of His will. If the Lord Jesus has 
decreed, desired, purposed the salvation of all mankind 
then the entire human race will be saved, or, otherwise, He 
lacks the power to make good His intentions, and in such 
a case it could never be said “He shall see of the travail of 
His soul and be satisfied.’ The issue raised involves the 
deity of the Saviour for a defeated Saviour cannot be God. 

Having reviewed some of the general principles which 
require us to believe that the death of Christ was limited in 
its design, we turn now to consider some of the explicit 
statements of Scripture which expressly affirm it. In that 
wondrous and matchless fifty-third of Isaiah God tells us 
concerning His Son, “He was taken from prison and from 
judgment: and who shall declare His generation? for He 


88 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgres- 
ston of My people was He stricken” (v. 8). In perfect 
harmony with this was the word of the angel to Joseph, 
“Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His 
people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21) i. e. not merely Israel, 
but all whom the Father had “given” Him. Our Lord Him- 
self declared, “The Son of Man came not to be ministered 
unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for 
many” (Matt. 20:28), but why have said “for many” if all 
without exception were included? It was “His people” 
whom He “redeemed” (Luke 1:68). It was for “the sheep” 
and not the “goats” that the Good Shepherd gave His 
life (John to:11). It was the “Church of God” which He 
“purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). 

If there is one scripture more than any other upon which 
we should be willing to rest our case it is John 11 :49-52. 
Here we are told “And one of them, named Caiaphas, being 
the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know 
nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that 
one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation 
perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being 
high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die 
for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also 
He should gather together in one the children of God that 
were scattered abroad.” Here we are told that Caiaphas 
“prophesied not of himself,” that is, like those employed by 
God in Old Testament times (see 2 Pet. 1:21) his prophecy 
originated not with himself, but he spake as he was moved 
by the Holy Spirit; thus, is the value of his utterance care- 
fully guarded, and the Divine source of this revelation ex- 
pressly vouched for. Here, too, we are definitely informed 
that Christ died for “that nation,” i. e., Israel, and also for 
the One Body, His Church, for it is into the Church that 
the children of God “‘scattered” among the nations—are now 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 89 


being “gathered together in one.” And is it not remarkable 
that the members of the Church are here called “children 
of God” even before Christ died and therefore before He 
commenced to build His Church! The vast majority of 
them had not then been born, yet were they regarded as 
“children of God ;” children of God because they had been 
chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world and 
therefore “predestinated unto the adoption of children by 
Jesus Christ to Himself” (Eph. 1:4,5). In like manner, 
Christ said, “Other sheep J have (not “shall have”) which 
are not of this fold” (John 10:16). 

If ever the real design of the Cross was uppermost in the 
heart and speech of our blessed Saviour it was during the 
last week of His earthly ministry. What then do the Scrip- 
tures which treat of this portion of His ministry record in 
connection with our present inquiry? They read, “When 
Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart 
out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own 
which were in the world, He loved them unto the end” 
(John 13:1). They tell us how He said, “Greater love 
hath no man than this, that a man lay down His life for His 
friends” (John 15:13). They record His word, “For their 
sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also might be sanctified 
through the truth’ (John 17:19), which means that for 
the sake of His own, those “given” to Him by the Father, He 
separated Himself unto the death of the Cross. One may 
well ask, Why such discrimination of terms if Christ died 
for all men indiscriminately ? 

Ere closing this section of the chapter we shall consider 
briefly a few of those passages which seem to teach most 
strongly an unlimited design in the death of Christ. In 2 
Cor. 5:14 we read, “One died for all,” but that is not all this 
scripture affirms. If the entire verse and passage from 
which these words are quoted be carefully examined it will 


90 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


be found that instead of teaching an unlimited atonement, 
it emphatically argues a limited design in the death of Christ. 
The whole verse reads, “For the love of Christ constraineth 
us; because we thus judge, that if One died for all, then 
were all dead.” It should be pointed out that in the Greek 
there is the definite article before the last ‘‘all,” and that the 
verb here is in the aorist tense, and therefore should read, 
“We thus judge: that if One died for all, then they all died.” 
The apostle is here drawing a conclusion as is clear from the 
words “we thus judge, that if . . . then were,” His mean- 
ing is that those for whom the One died are regarded, judi- 
cially, as having died too. The next verse goes on to say, 
“And He died for all, that they which live should not hence- 
forth live unto themselves but unto Him which died for 
them, and rose again.” The One not only died but “rose 
again” and so, too, did the “all’’ for whom He died, for it is 
here said they “live.” Those for whom a substitute acts 
are legally regarded as having acted themselves. In the 
sight of the law the substitute and those whom he repre- 
sents are one. So it is in the sight of God. Christ was 
identified with His people and His people were identified 
with Him, hence when He died they died (judicially) and 
when He rose they rose also. But further we are told in 
this passage (v. 17) that if any man be in Christ he is a 
new creation; he has received a new life in fact as well as 
in the sight of the law, hence the “all” for whom Christ died 
are here bidden to live henceforth no more unto themselves, 
“but unto Him which died for them, and rose again.” In 
other words, those who belonged to this “all” for whom 
Christ died are here exhorted to manifest practically in their 
daily lives what is true of them judicially: they are to “live 
unto Christ who died for them.” Thus the “One died for 
all” is defined for us. The “all” for which Christ died are 
the they which “live” and which are here bidden to live “unto 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 91 


Him.” This passage then teaches three important truths, 
and the better to show its scope we mention them in their 
inverse order: certain ones are here bidden to live no more 
unto themselves but unto Christ; the ones thus admonished 
are “they which live,” that is live spiritually, hence, the 
children of God for they alone of mankind possess spiritual 
life, all others being dead in trespasses and sins; those who 
do thus live are the ones, the “all,” the “them,” for whom 
Christ died and rose again. This passage therefore teaches 
that Christ died for all His people, the elect, those given to 
Him by the Father; that as the result of His death (and 
rising again “for them”) they “live’’—and the elect are the 
only ones who do thus “live;’’ and this life which is theirs 
through Christ must be lived “unto Him,” Christ’s Jove must 
now “constrain” them. 

“For there is one God, and one Mediator, between God 
and men (not “man” for this would have been a generic 
term and signified mankind. O the accuracy of Holy 
Writ!), the Man Christ Jesus; who gave Himself a ransom 
for all, to be testified in due time” (1 Tim. 2:5,6). It is 
_ upon the words “who gave Himself a ransom for all” we 
would now comment. In Scripture the word “all” (as 
applied to humankind) is used in two senses—absolutely 
and relatively. In some passages it means all without ex- 
ception; in others it signifies all without distinction. As to 
which of these meanings it bears in any particular passage 
must be determined by the context and decided by a com- 
parison of parallel scriptures. That the word “all” 7s used 
in a relative and restricted sense and in such case means all 
without distinction and not all without exception is clear 
from a number of scriptures from which we select two or 
three as samples. “And there went out unto him all the 
land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized 
of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins’ (Mark 


92 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


1:5). Does this mean that every man, woman and child 
from “all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem” were 
baptized of John in Jordan? Surely not. Luke 7:30 dis- 
tinctly says “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the 
counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of 
him.’ Then what does “all baptized of him’ mean? We 
answer it does not mean all without exception, but all with- 
out distinction, that is, all classes and conditions of men. 
The same explanation applies to Luke 3:21. Again we read, 
“And early in the morning.He came again into the Temple, 
and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and 
taught them” (John 8:2); are we to understand this ex- 
pression absolutely or relatively? Does “all the people” 
mean all without exception or all without distinction, that 
is, all classes and conditions of people? Manifestly the 
latter ; for the Temple was not able to accommodate every-_ 
body that was in Jerusalem at this time, namely, the Feast 
of Tabernacles. Again we read in Acts 22:15, “For thou 
(Paul) shalt be His witness unto all men of what thou hast 
seen and heard,” surely “all men” here does not mean every 
member of the human race. Now we submit that the words 
“who gave Himself a ransom for all” in 1 Tim. 2:6’mean 
all without distinction and not all without exception. He 
gave Himself a ransom for men of all nationalities, of all 
generations, of all classes; in a word, for all the elect, as 
we read in Rev. 5:9 “For Thou wast slain, and hast re- 
deemed us to God by Thy blood out of every kindred, and 
tongue, and people, and nation.” That this is not an arbi- 
trary definition of the “all” in our passages is clear from 
Matt. 20:28 where we read, “The Son of Man came not to be 
ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ran- 
som for many” which limitation would be quite meaningless 
if He gave Himself a ransom for all without exception. 
Futhermore, the qualifying words here “to be testified in 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 93 


due time” must be taken into consideration. If Christ gave 
Himself a ransom for the whole human race in what sense 
will this be “testified in .due time” seeing that multitudes of 
men will certainly be eternally lost? But if our text means 
that Christ gave Himself a ransom for God’s elect, for all 
without distinction, without distinction of nationality, social 
prestige, moral character, age or sex, then the meaning of 
these qualifying words are quite intelligible, for in “due 
time” this will be “testified” in the actual and accomplished 
salvation of every one of them. 

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the 
angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and 
honor; that He by the grace of God should taste death for 
every man” (Heb. 2:9). This passage need not detain us 
long. A false doctrine has been erected here on a false 
translation. There is no word whatever in the Greek cor- 
responding to “man” in our English version. In the Greek 
it is left in the abstract—“He tasted death for every.” The 
Revised Version has correctly omitted ‘“‘man” from the text, 
but has wrongly inserted it in italics. Others suppose the 
word “thing” should be supplied—‘‘He tasted death for 
every thing’—but this, too, we deem a mistake. It seems 
to us that the words which immediately follow explain our 
text: “For it became Him, for whom are all things, and by 
whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to 
make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffer- 
ings.” It is of “sons” the apostle is here writing, and we 
suggest an ellipsis of “son’”—thus, “He tasted death for 
every’—and supply son in italics. Thus instead of teach- 
ing the unlimited design of Christ’s death, Heb. 2:9, 10 is in 
perfect accord with the other scriptures we have quoted 
which set forth the restricted purpose in the Atonement: it 
was for the “sons” and not the human race our Lord 
“tasted death.” 


94 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


“If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, 
Jesus Christ the righteous: And He is the propitiation for 
our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole 
world” (1 John 2:1,2). These words do not express what 
Christ has accomplished by His death, but make known 
what He 1s in virtue of that death. The reference is to the 
“Mercy-seat’—the Propitiatory—where, of old, God met 
Israel’s high priest above the ark, and is here used contrast- 
edly. Of old, Israel alone had access to the Mercy-seat, 
but now, today, Christ is a Mercy-seat, “for the whole 
world.” As to the particular scope of “the whole world,” 
‘this must be gathered by a careful comparison of other 
passages. That Christ is not a propitiation to (we do not say 
“for” ) any but believers is unmistakably clear from Rom. 
3:25—‘Whom God hath set forth a propitiation through 
faith in His blood.” The simple meaning of our text then 
is that as the Mercy-seat of old was the place where Aaron 
(representing the entire nation) obtained mercy and com- 
muned with God, so Christ is the One through whom, not 
only those to whom John was writing, but, all believers of all 
ages and nations have access to God and receive forgive- 
ness of sins. 

In closing this section of the chapter let us say once more 
that the only limitation in the Atonement we have contended 
for arises from pure sovereignty; it is a limitation not of 
value and virtue, but of design and application. We turn 
now to consider— 


3. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF Gop THE Hoty Sprrit In SAL- 
VATION. 


Since the Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons in the 
blessed Trinity it necessarily follows that He is in perfect 
sympathy with the will and design of the other Persons 
in the Godhead. The eternal purpose of the Father in 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 95 


election, the limited design in the death of the Son, and the 
restricted scope of the Holy Spirit’s operations are in per- 
fect accord. If the Father chose certain ones before the 
foundation of the world and gave them to His Son, and if 
it was for them that Christ gave Himself a ransom, then the 
Holy Spirit is not now working to “bring the world to 
Christ.”” The mission of the Holy Spirit im the world today 
is to apply the benefits of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. 
The question which is now to engage us is not the extent of 
the Holy Spirit’s power—on that point there can be no 
doubt, it is infinite—but what we shall seek to show is that 
His power and operations are directed by Divine wisdom 
and sovereignty. 

We have just said that the power and operations of the 
Holy Spirit are directed by Divine wisdom and indisputable 
sovereignty. In proof of this assertion we appeal first to 
our Lord’s words to Nicodemus in John 3:8:—“The wind 
bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, 
but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: 
so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” A comparison is 
here drawn between the wind and the Spirit. The comparison 
is a double one: First, both are sovereign in their actions, 
and second, both are mysterious in their operations. The 
comparison is pointed out in the word “so.” The first point 
of analogy is seen in the words “where it listeth” or “pleas- 
eth’; the second is found in the words “canst not tell.” With 
the second point of analogy we are not now concerned, 
but upon the first we would comment further. 

“The wind bloweth where it pleaseth ...so is every 
one that is born of the Spirit.’ The wind is an element 
which man can neither harness nor control. The wind 
neither consults man’s pleasure nor can it be regulated by his 
devices. So it is with the Spirit. The wind blows when it 
pleases, where it pleases, as it pleases. So it is with the 


96 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


Spirit. The wind is regulated by Divine wisdom, yet, so far 
as man is concerned, it is absolutely sovereign in its opera- 
tions. So it is with the Spirit. Sometimes the wind blows 
so softly it scarcely rustles a leaf; at other times it blows so 
loudly that its roar can be heard for miles. So it is in the 
matter of the new birth; with some the Holy Spirit deals so 
gently that His work is imperceptible to human onlookers ; 
with others His action is so powerful, radical, revolutionary, 
that His operations are patent to many. Sometimes the wind 
is purely local in its reach, at other times wide spread in its 
scope. So it is with the Spirit: today He acts on one or two 
souls, tomorrow He may, as at Pentecost, “prick in the heart” 
a whole multitude. But whether He works on few or many 
He consults not man. He acts as He pleases. The new 
birth is due to the sovereign will of the Spirit. 

Each of the three Persons in the blessed Trinity is con- 
cerned with our salvation: with the Father it is predestina- 
tion; with the Son propitiation; with the Spirit regenera- 
tion. The Father chose us; the Son died for us; the Spirit 
quickens us. The Father was concerned about us; the Son 
shed His blood for us, the Spirit performs His work within 
us. What the One did was eternal, what the Other did was 
external, what the Spirit does is internal. It is with the 
work of the Spirit we are now concerned, with His work in 
the new birth, and particularly His sovereign operations in 
the new birth. The Father purposed our new birth; the 
Son has made possible (by His “travail”) the new birth; but 
it is the Spirit who effects the new birth—“Born of the 
Spirit” (John 3:6). 

The new birth is solely the work of God the Spirit and 
man has no part or lot in it. This from the very nature of 
the case. Birth altogether excludes the idea of any effort 
or work on the part of the one who is born. Personally we 
have no more to do with our spiritual birth than we had 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 97 


with our natural birth. The new birth is a spiritual resur- 
rection, a “passing from death unto life” (John 5:24) and, 
clearly, resurrection is altogether outside of man’s province. 
No corpse can re-animate itself. Hence it is written, “It 
is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing” 
(John 6:63). But the Spirit does not “quicken” everybody 
—why? The usual answer returned to this question 1s, 
Because everybody does not trust in Christ. It is supposed 
that the Holy Spirit quickens only those who believe. But 
this is to put the cart before the horse. Faith is not the 
cause of the new birth but the consequence of it. This 
ought not to need arguing. Faith (in God) is an ex- 
otic, something that is not native to the human heart. If 
faith were a natural product of the human heart, the exer- 
cise of a principle common to human nature, it would never 
have been written, “All men have not faith’ (2 Thess. 3:2). 
Faith is a spiritual grace, the fruit of the spiritual nature, 
and because the unregenerate are spiritually dead—‘dead in 
trespasses and sins’—then it follows that faith from them is 
impossible, for a dead man cannot believe anything. “So 
then they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 
8 :8)—but they could if it were possible for the flesh to 
believe. Compare with this last quoted scripture Heb. 11:6 
—“But without faith it is impossible to please Him.” Can 
God be “pleased”’ or satisfied with any thing which does not 
have its origin in Himself? 

That the work of the Holy Spirit precedes our believing 
is unequivocally established by 2 Thess. 2:13—“God hath 
from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sancti- 
fication of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” Note that 
“sanctification of the Spirit” comes before and makes pos- 
sible “belief of the truth.” What then is the “sanctification 
of the Spirit”? We answer the new birth. In scripture 
“sanctification” always means “separation,” separation from 


98 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


something and unto something or someone. Let us now 
amplify our assertion that the “sanctification of the Spirit” 
corresponds to the new birth and points to the positional 
effect of it. 

Here is a servant of God who preaches the Gospel to a 
congregation in which are an hundred unsaved people. He 
brings before them the teaching of Scripture concerning 
their ruined and lost condition; he speaks of God, His char- 
acter and righteous demands; he tells of Christ meeting 
God’s demands, and dying the Just for the unjust, and 
declares that through “this Man” is now preached the for- 
giveness of sins; he closes by urging the lost to believe what 
God has said in His Word and receive His Son as their own 
personal Saviour. The meeting is over; the congregation 
disperses ; ninety-nine of the unsaved have refused to come 
to Christ that they might have life and go out into the night 
having no hope and without God in the world. But the 
hundredth heard the Word of life; the Seed sown fell into 
ground which had been prepared by God; he believed the 
Good News, and goes home rejoicing that his name is writ- 
ten in heaven. He has been “born again,” and just as a 
newly-born babe in the natural world begins life by clinging 
instinctively to its mother in its helplessness, so this new- 
born soul has clung to Christ. Just as we read, “The Lord 
opened” the heart of Lydia “that she attended unto the things 
which were spoken of Paul’ (Acts 16:14), so in the case 
supposed above, the Holy Spirit quickened that one before » 
he believed the Gospel message. Here then is the “‘sancti- 
fication of the Spirit:’ this one soul who has been born 
again has, by virtue of his new birth, been separated from 
the other ninety-nine. Those born again are by the Spirit 
set apart from those who are dead in trespasses and sins. 

A beautiful type of the operations of the Holy Spirit 
antecedent to the sinner’s “belief of the truth” is found in 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 99 


the first chapter of Genesis. We read in verse 2, “And the 
earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon 
the face of the deep.” The original Hebrew here might. 
be literally rendered thus: “And the earth had become a 
desolate ruin, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” 
In “the beginning” the earth was not created in the condi- 
tion described in verse 2. Between the first two verses of 
Genesis I some awful catastrophe had occurred—possibly 
the fall of Satan—and as the consequence the earth had been 
blasted and blighted and had become a “desolute ruin” and 
lay beneath a pall of “darkness.’’ Such also is the history of 
man. Today, man is not in the condition in which he left 
the hands of his Creator: an awful catastrophe has_ hap- 
pened, and now man is a “desolate ruin” and in total 
“darkness” concerning spiritual things. Next we read 
in Genesis 1 how God refashioned the ruined earth and 
created new beings to inhabit it. First we read, “And the 
Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Next 
we are told “And God said, Let there be light : and there was 
light.” The order is the same in the new creation: there 1s 
first the action of the Spirit, and then the Word of God 
giving light. Before the Word found entrance into the 
scene of desolation and darkness, bringing with it the light, 
the Spirit of God “moved.” So it is in the new creation. 
“The entrance of Thy words giveth light” (Ps. 119:130), 
but before it can enter the darkened human heart the Spirit 
of God must operate upon it.* 


*The priority contended for above is rather in order of nature than 
of time, just as the effect must ever be preceded by the cause. A 
blind man must have his eyes opened before he can see, and yet there 
is no interval of time between the one and the other. As soon as his 
eyes are opened he sees. So a man must be born again before he 
can “see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). Seeing the Son is nec- 
essary to believing in Him: Unbelief is attributed to spiritual blind- 
ness—those who believed not the “report” of the Gospel “saw no 
beauty” in Christ that they should desire Him. The work of the Spir- 


100 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


To return to 2 Thess. 2:13: “But we are bound to give 
thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the 
Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to 
salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the 
truth.” The order of thought here is most important and 
instructive. First God’s eternal choice; second, the sancti- 
fication of the Spirit; third, belief of the truth. Precisely 
the same order is found in 1 Pet. 1:2—‘Elect according to 
the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctifica- 
tion of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the 
blood of Jesus Christ.” We take it that the “obedience” 
here is the “obedience of faith’ (Rom. 1:5) which appro- 
priates the virtues of the sprinkled blood of the Lord Jesus. 
So then before the “obedience” (of faith, cf. Heb. 5:9) 
there is the work of the Spirit setting us apart, and behind 
that is the election of God the Father. The ones “sancti- 
fied of the Spirit” then, are they whom “God hath from the 
beginning chosen to salvation” (2 Thess. 2:13), those who 
are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the 
Hather™ (7), Petis1 <2); 

But, it may be said, is not the present mission of the 
Holy Spirit to “convict the world of sin?’ And we answer, 
itis not. The mission of the Spirit is threefold—to glorify 
Christ, to vivify the elect, to edify the saints. John 16:8-11 
does not describe the “mission” of the Spirit but sets forth 
the significance of His presence here in the world. The 
Holy Spirit ought not to be here at all; that is a startling 
statement to make, but we say it deliberately, Christ is the 
One who ought to be here. He was sent here by the Father 
but the world did not want Him, would not have Him, hated 


it in “quickening” the one dead in sins precedes faith in Christ just 
as Cause ever precedes effect. But no sooner is the heart turned to- 
ward Christ by the Spirit than the Saviour is embraced by the sin- 
ner. 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 101 


Him and cast Him out. And the presence of the Holy 
Spirit in the world today demonstrates its guilt. John 16: 
8-11 does not give us a definition of His active ministry, but 
makes known the solemn implication and meaning of His 
presence in the world. This passage does not show us the 
Holy Spirit dealing according to the Gospel with individual 
souls but reveals Him as denouncing and condemning the 
world because of its treatment of the Christ of God—con- 
demning objectively not subjectively. 

“And when He is come, He will reprove (or, better, “con- 
vict’—bring in guilty) the world of sin, and of righteous- 
ness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on 
Me; Of righteousness, because I go to My Father, and ye 
see Me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this 
world is judged” (John 16:8-11). Three things the presence 
of the Holy Spirit on earth demonstrates to the world: first, 
its sin, because the world refused to believe on Christ; sec- 
ond, God’s righteousness in exalting to His own right hand 
the One cast out, and now no more seen by the world; third, 
judgment, because Satan the world’s prince is already 
judged though execution of his judgment is yet future. 
Thus the Holy Spirit’s presence here displays things as they 
really are. We repeat, John 16:8-11 makes no reference to 
the mission of the Spirit of God in the world, for during 
this dispensation the Spirit has no mission and ministry 
worldward; it is not until the Millennium, when Christ 
is “in the midst of Israel” (Joel 2:27) that the Spirit will 
be poured out upon “all flesh” (Joel 2:28). 

The Holy Spirit is sovereign in His operations and His 
mission is confined to God’s elect: they are the ones He 
“comforts,” “seals,” guides into all truth, shews things 
to come, etc. The work of the Spirit is necessary in order 
to the complete accomplishment of the Father’s eternal 
purpose. Speaking hypothetically, but reverently, be it 


102 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


said, that if God had done nothing more than given 
Christ to die for sinners, not a single sinner would ever 
have been saved. In order for any sinner to see his need 
of a Saviour and be willing to receive the Saviour he 
needs, the work of the Holy Spirit upon and within him 
were imperatively required. Had God done nothing more 
than given Christ to die for sinners and then sent forth 
His servants to proclaim salvation through Christ, leav- 
ing sinners entirely to themselves to accept or reject as 
they pleased, then every sinner would have rejected, be- 
cause at heart every man hates God and is at enmity with 
Him. Therefore the work of the Holy Spirit was need- 
ed to bring the sinner to Christ, evercome his innate op- 
position, and compel him to accept the provision God has 
made. We say “compel” the sinner, for this is precisely 
what the Holy Spirit does, has to do, and this leads us 
to consider at some length, though as briefly as possible, 
the parable of the “Marriage Supper.” 

In Luke 14:16 we read, “A certain man made a great 
supper, and bade many.” By comparing carefully what 
follows here with Matt. 22:2-10 several important distinc- 
tions will be observed. We take it that these passages are 
two independent accounts of the same parable, differing 
in detail according to the distinctive purpose and design 
of the Holy Spirit in each Gospel. Matthew’s account— 
in harmony with the Spirit’s presentation there of Christ 
as the Son of David, the King of the Jews—says, “A cer- 
tain king made a marriage for his son.” Luke’s account 
—where the Spirit presents Christ as the Son of Man— 
says, “A certain man made a great supper and bade many.” 
Matt. 22:3 says, “And sent forth His servants,” Luke 
14:17 says, “And sent His servant.’ Now what we wish 
particularly to call attention to is that all through Matthew’s 
account it is “servants,” whereas in Luke it is always “sery- 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION 103 


ant.”’ The class of readers for whom we are writing are 
those that believe, unreservedly, in the verbal inspiration 
of the Scriptures, and such will readily acknowledge there 
must be some reason for this change from the plural num- 
ber in Matthew to the singular number in Luke. We believe 
the reason is a weighty one and that attention to this vari- 
ation reveals an important truth. We believe that the “serv- 
ants’ in Matthew, speaking generally, are all who go forth 
preaching the Gospel but that the “Servant” in Luke 14 1s 
the Holy Spirit Himself. This is not incongruous, or de- 
rogatory to the Holy Spirit, for God the Son, in the days of 
His earthly ministry was the Servant of Jehovah (Is. 42:1). 
It will be observed that in Matt. 22 the “servants” are sent 
forth to do three things: first, to “call” to the wedding (v. 
3); second, to “tell those which are bidden ... all things 
are ready: come unto the marriage” (v. 4) ; third, to “bid to 
the marriage” (v. 9), and these three are the things which 
those who minister the Gospel today are now doing. In 
Luke 14 the Servant is also sent forth to do three things: 
first, He is “to say to them that were bidden, Come: for 
all things are now ready” (v. 17); second, He is to “bring 
im the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind” 
(v. 21); third, He is to “compel them to come in” (v. 23), 
and the last two of these the Holy Spirit alone can do! 

In the above scripture we see that “the Servant,’ the 
Holy Spirit, compels certain ones to come in to the “sup- 
per” and herein is seen His sovereignty, His omnipotency, 
His Divine sufficiency. The clear implication from this 
word “compel” is, that those whom the Holy Spirit does 
“bring in” are not willing of themselves to come. This 
is exactly what we have sought to show in previous para- 
graphs. By nature God’s elect are children of wrath even as 
others (Eph. 2:3) and as such their hearts are at enmity 
with God. But this “enmity” of theirs is overcome by the 


104 | THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


Spirit and He “compels” them to come in. Is it not clear 
then that the reason why others are left outside is not only 
because they are unwilling to go in, but also because 
the Holy Spirit does not “compel” them to come in? Is it 
not manifest that the Holy Spirit is sovereign in the exercise 
of His power, that as the wind “bloweth where it pleaseth” 
so the Holy Spirit operates where He pleases? 

And now to sum up. We have sought to show the per- 
fect consistency of God’s ways: that each Person in. the 
Godhead acts in sympathy and harmony with the Others. 
God the Father elected certain ones to salvation, God the 
Son died for the elect, and God the Spirit quickens the elect. 
Well may we sing, 


Praise God from whom all blessings flow, 
Praise Him all creatures here below, 
Praise Him above ye heavenly host, 
Pratse Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 


GUAR TER er Ly 1) 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION. 


on 
oy 
4 
: 
’ 
< 
“i 
8 
, 
3 
‘ 


= - ae ; it At ane : J : : Fe 
- pl . i as : “>. , ’ 
, - . 
ge ’ 5 ’ 1 pn ae 2 % 2 4 " ae 
wt * ¥ r rs a - od 
il = a A * 
’ > ae ‘ 
” -, \ _ fe “a % = ~ 
x am 5 J 
* * " 
; ‘ - ‘ ne ag’ 2 + 
; a ry r ~~ - a 
j t Al 4 ‘ i ~ ~ - wt 
wa 1 - - y . jonel 5 . S rs r p 
. A = i) ~ ‘ + 
igs ‘ = - oy J c 1 . < « a n 
he a4 a —— . ‘ > P es " 
C j . ’ . ; ’ . 
; So, —— - P Ce ‘ 2 f ' ‘ Z Peas . j ¢ : 
- : a J ee PP Ae J at " ~ * oe 
5 gee aa - od o Pw . sey ; : : > , : 5 ’ at AN ME ies oer 
pe a . 4 <-> ‘ “ r ‘ io { & ¥ ve - . 
wr, 2 # ae , = 7 ; . S gi ‘ Spe J . , os % 
> y\ ' 2 _ v 4 
hee es . we ~ a 
- i Po ae ¢ 4 “f wae "i 7 
‘ 4 = A — 
i i / 2 . ~< ean ~ Ss ee 
a - * ~ ae > , 
2 a 
a t ts e. ‘ . 
: = - 
te ed ‘ - r ¥ ’ e 
. ie - - te. Seal « ' 
- ~~ * > 
¢ i > ~ 
om ‘3 . ne 
< = ’ ; 
’ . = > - 
t : r : ‘ s 
f . “ “ < : : J be > 4 : 
: = ms , ¥ . : 
. ; mm , . - x 
. ‘ s o ie ‘ u ‘ 
y a ‘ - “i 
. wy . a ‘ 
* A . ~_ > 
i o - 
“a yo _ ‘7 3 ~ ~ > 
> . 
; . t 
. . a 
‘ oe w) ‘ = - ‘ 
‘ t . ~ vf ‘oer, 
wl ~ a +t is ~ he 7 = - 
> . ¢ te - “a . - - om * 
- * - vi * * 
x > = J 
’ + 1 - 
. . *. “4 
r 2 - 
« ‘ \ 
‘ { ~~ ~*~ ~ 
: sd ¥ Oe ail ’ ; ; o 
~ ™ 4 ’ 
, - a ~ j ‘s “ 
- "4 " 2 . 
- : ats 4 4 c ; 


V. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION. 


God the Father in Salvation we examined seven pas- 
geeea Sages which represent Him as making a choice from 
among the children of men and predestinating certain ones 
to be conformed to the image of His Son. The thoughtful 
reader will naturally ask, And what of those who were not 
“ordained to eternal life?’ The answer which is usually re- 
turned to this question, even by those who profess to believe 
what the Scriptures teach concerning God’s Sovereignty, is, 
that God passes by the non-elect, leaves them alone to go 
their own way, and in the end casts them into the Lake of 
Fire because they refuse His way, and rejected the Saviour 
of His providing. But this is only a part of the truth: the 
other part—that which is most offensive to the carnal mind 
—is either ignored or denied. 

In view of the awful solemnity of the subject here before 
us, in view of the fact that today almost all—even those who 
profess to be Calvinists—reject and repudiate this doctrine, 
and in view of the liklihood that this is one of the points 
in our book which is calculated to raise the most contro- 
versy, we feel that an extended enquiry into this aspect of 
God’s Truth is demanded. That this branch of the subject 
of God’s Sovereignty is profoundly mysterious we freely 
allow, yet, that is no reason why we should reject it. The 
trouble is that, nowadays, there are so many who receive 
the testimony of God only so far as they can satisfactorily 
account for all the reasons and grounds of His conduct, 
which means they will accept nothing but that which can be 
measured in the petty scales of their own limited capacities. 


Wl fi the last chapter when treating of the Sovereignty of 


108 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


Stating it in its baldest form the point now to be con- 
sidered is, Has God fore-ordained certain ones to damna- 
tion? That many will be eternally damned is clear from 
Scripture, that each one will be judged according to his 
works and reap as he has sown, and that in consequence 
his “damnation is just” (Rom. 3:8), is equally sure, and 
that God decreed that the none-elect should choose the course 
they follow we now undertake to prove. Writing to the 
saints at Thessalonica the apostle declares “For God hath not 
appointed us to wrath:” this statement is utterly pointless if 
God has not “appointed” any to wrath. To say that God 
hath not appointed us to wrath implies there are some He 
has appointed to wrath, and if it were not that our minds 
were blinded by prejudice we.could not fail to see this 
clearly. 

Now all will acknowledge that from the foundation of the 
world God cértainly fore-knew and fore-saw who would and 
who would not accept Christ as their Saviour, therefore in 
giving being and birth to those He knew would reject Christ 
He necessarily created them unto damnation. All that can 
be said in reply to this is, No, while God did foreknow these 
ones would reject Christ yet He did not decree that they 
should, neither did He do anything to make them reject 
Christ. But this is a begging of the real question at issue. 
God had a definite reason why He created men, a specific pur- 
pose why He created this and that individual, and in view of 
the eternal destination of His creatures He purposed either 
that this one should spend eternity in Heaven or that this one 
should spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. If then He fore- 
saw that in creating a certain person that person would de- 
spise and reject the Saviour, yet knowing this beforehand 
He, nevertheless, brought that person into existence, then it 
is clear He designed and ordained that that person should 
be eternally lost. Again; faith is God’s gift, and the purpose 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 109 


to give it only to some, involves the purpose not to give it to 
others. Without faith there is no salvation—“He that be- 
lieveth not shall be damned”—hence if there were some of 
Adam’s descendants to whom He purposed not to give faith 
it must be because He ordained that they should be damned. 

Above we have stated the Doctrine of Reprobation in its 
baldest form and at this point it is necessary to make a few 
remarks so as to safeguard it against false conclusions. The 
way in which this truth is presented in Scripture is not mere- 
ly that God created men either to damn or save them, but 
that He created them for His own glory—“The Lord hath 
made all things for Himself’—and glorified in man He will 
be, if not in one way, then in another. In the salvation of the 
elect it is His grace which will be magnified ; in the damna- 
tion of the non-elect it is His justice which will be exempli- 
fied. Again; it is not that God made man wicked in order to 
damn him: “God hath made man upright, but they have 
sought out many inventions” (Ecc. 7:29). God has not 
created sinful beings in order to damn them, for God is not 
to be charged with the sin of His creatures, The responsi- 
bility and criminality is man’s. Yet, as intimated above, 
God did create Adam knowing that he would fall, and that 
in consequence his posterity would enter this world as sin- 
ners, and that the majority of them would prefer sin to 
holiness ; so that God created the human race fore-seeing that 
the greater part of it would be lost, hence that He jore- 
ordained the eternal damnation of these ones is a conclusion 
from which there is no escape. 

In the Westminister Confession it is said, “God from all 
eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own 
will, freely and unchangeably fore-ordain whatsoever comes 
to pass”. The late F. W. Grant—a most careful and cau- 
tious student and writer—commenting on these words said: 
“It is perfectly, divinely true, that God hath ordained for His 


$10 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


own glory whatsoever comes to pass.” Now if these state- 
ments are true, is not the doctrine of Reprobation established 
by them? What, in human history, is the one thing which 
does come to pass every day? What, but that men and wom- 
en die, pass out of this world into a hopeless eternity, an 
eternity of suffering and woe. If then God has fore-or- 
dained whatsoever comes to pass then He must have decreed 
that vast numbers of human beings should pass out of this 
world unsaved to suffer eternally in the Lake of Fire. Ad- 
mitting the general premise, is not the specific conclusion 
inevitable? 

In the body of our book we have shown that the word 
“know” and its cognates when applied to God in the Scrip- 
tures have reference not to His prescience but to His knowl- 
edge of approbation. For example, when we read in Rom. 
11:2 “God hath not cast away His people whom He fore- 
knew” (Israel) the word “fore-knew” must signify His peo- 
ple whom He had chosen to be the objects of His love (See 
Deut. 7:7,8). In view then of this meaning of the word, 
consider Matt. 7:23. In the day of judgment the Lord will 
say to many “I never knew you.” It is not that He says “I 
know you not”, but “I never knew you’’—you were never 
the objects of My approbation. Contrast with this “I know 
My sheep, and am known of Mine” (John 10:14) ee 
sheep, His elect, He does “know”, but the reprobate, the non- 
elect, He “knows” not—no, not even before the foundation 
of the world did He know them—He “NEVER” knew them. 
But we shall turn now from incidental references to Repro- 
bation and consider the one passage where the doctrine is ex- 
pounded at length. 

It is a general principle in God’s Word to reserve the 
treatment of any important topic for one principal examina- 
tion. For example, there are many passages in the New 
Testament which make mention of Justification by Faith, 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 111 


but in Romans 4 the doctrine is treated of at length once 
for all. Again; there are repeated references to our Lord’s 
coming again for His people, but only in I Thess. 4 do we 
find this entered into fully. Likewise, there are interspersed 
throughout the Word frequent mentionings of the Final 
Judgment—the judgment of the wicked—but only in Rev. 
20 have we a detailed description of it. So it is with the 
Doctrine of God’s Sovereignty in its application both to the 
elect and the reprobate: many are the passages which make 
mention of these, but only once is the whole subject entered 
into at length; that passage is found in Rom. 9, and to it 
we now turn. 

It would be beside our present purpose to attempt a de- 
tailed exposition of the entire chapter: the portion we shall 
now examine is that which is germane to our immediate 
theme. The whole chapter is concerned with the Sovereignty 
of God. Beginning with God’s sovereign dealings with Is- 
rael, the apostle shows that the principles which govern His 
ways with them operate also in His disposition of the entire 
human race. 

V 7. “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, 
are they all children: but, In Isaac shall Thy seed be called.” 
God’s sovereignty was thus displayed in His passing by Ish- 
mael and his descendants and calling Isaac and his seed. 
Both Ishmael and Isaac were sons of Abraham, but one was 
taken and the other left. 

Vv 10-13. “And not only this; but when Rebecca also had 
concewved by one, even by our father Isaac, (For the chil- 
dren being not yet born, neither having done any good or 
evil, that the purpose of God according to election might 
stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth;) It was said 
unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is writ- 
ten, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated’. God’s 
sovereignty is here seen in connection with the sons of 


112 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


Isaac—Jacob is loved, Esau is hated. The question is then 
raised “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness 
with God?” The apostle here anticipates the usual objection 
of the carnal mind. Does not loving Jacob and hating Esau 
before they had done any good or evil imply that there is 
injustice in God? It is particularly to be noted that the ob- _ 
jection which the apostle here meets fires the meaning of the 
language employed in the previous verses! The force of the 
objection is, Is it just for God to love one who has done no 
good, and to hate one who has done no evil? If the words 
“Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” are to be ex- 
plained away in the manner so many now do, then such an 
objection as the apostle here meets would be quite’ irrele- 
vant. How then does the apostle dispose of the objection? 

Attempts have often been made by Arminian theologians 
and their disciples to show that the reference here in Romans 
9 :10-13 has respect only to national and temporal blessings, 
and that spiritual blessing, salvation, is not here in view. 
Such a subterfuge has frequently been exposed, but for the 
benefit of those of our readers who have not access to it we 
quote from the work of one who has conclusively proven how 
baseless this theory ts: 

“The point then to be proved is that Paul speaks of 
Jacob’s election not only to temporal blessings, but also to 
salvation. 

“The first proof is, that the whole tenor and strain of the 
apostle’s argument in Romans has chief reference to the 
justification and salvation of individual sinners. Conse- 
quently, to divert his discourse concerning election, which is 
a constituent element of that argument, into another direc- 
tion, is to wrench it from its track. 

“The second proof is, that in the immedidte context Paul 
treats of the promise made by God to Abraham’s children, 
and he shows that Jacob was constituted an heir of that 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 113 


promise by Divine election. To say this illustrious promise 
guaranteed, exclusively or even chiefly, temporal blessings, 
is to eviscerate the Scriptures of their meaning. Paul’s 
argument concerning the promise in Galatians as well as in 
Romans would be contradicted. The promise concerned 
spiritual and saving blessings. To take any other view is to 
strip the Old Testament of its evangelical element and re- 
duce the New Testament of it to absurdity. Jacob, there- 
fore, was elected to share in the promise of salvation; that 
is, aS a promised salvation is not an earned salvation he was 
elected to salvation. 

“The third proof is, that the apostle expressly distinguish- 
es between the natural and the spiritual seed of Abraham. 
It is only the latter, argues he, who are the children of God. 
In immediate connection with this he introduces the cases of 
Jacob and Esau as illustrative of that distinction. Both 
were the carnal descendants of Abraham, but only Jacob, of 
the two, was one of his spiritual children, and therefore 
one of the children of God. How was he constituted such? 
Not by natural descent, but by God’s election of him irre- 
spectively of his works. Jacob’s election was therefore to 
adoption into God’s family, and, as God never loses any of 
-His adopted children, to eternal life’ (J. L. Girardeau, 
Columbia Theological Seminary, S. C.) 

Vv 15,16. “God forbid: For He saith to Moses, I will 
have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have com- 
passion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of 
him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that 
sheweth mercy”. The meaning of these words is very sim- 
ple. God cannot deal unjustly. But He can and does be- 
stow His favors on whom He pleases, for He is sovereign, 
saying, “I will have mercy on whom J will have mercy”. 
The question asked in v 14 would not have been raised 
unless Paul had wished himself to be understood as teaching 


114 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


that God chose and loved Jacob and rejected and hated Esan 
for no assignable reason outside of His own will. Hence, 
when it is said God loved Jacob for no good in him and 
hated Esau for no evil in him, man’s carnal mind concludes 
an injustice has been done. Mark carefully, then, the ground 
on which the apostle here rests his dental that there is un- 
righteousness with God. He offers no apology for his doc- 
trine, nor does he attempt any defense for God! Instead, he 
appeals to the testimony of God to Moses. These words of 
Jehovah to Moses set forth precisely the same truth as that 
which the apostle had expressed above in connection with 
Jacob and Esau. The connection and argument are obvious. 
It is not unjust when God exercises His sovereignty for He 
expressly claims this very right. Jehovah’s words to Moses 
were a formal declaration of a divine prerogative. If then God 
affirms His right to exercise His sovereignty it cannot be 
wrong for Him to do so, seeing there is no unrighteousness 
in God. 

V 17. “For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this 
same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My 
power in thee, and that My name might be declared through- 
out all the earth.’ These words refer us back to vs 13 and 
14. In v 13 God’s love to Jacob and His hatred to Esau are 
declared. Inv. 14 it is asked “Is there unrighteousness with 
God?” and here in v 17 the apostle continues his reply to 
the objection. We cannot do better now than quote from 
Calvin’s comments upon this verse. “There are here two 
things to be considered,—the predestination of Pharaoh to 
ruin which is to be referred to the past and yet the hidden 
counsel of God,—and then, the design of this, which was to 
make known the name of God. As many interpreters, striv- 
ing to modify this passage, pervert it, we must first observe, 
that for the word ‘I have raised thee up’, or stirred up, in the 
Hebrew is, ‘I have appointed’, by which it appears, that God, 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 115 


designing to show that the contumacy of Pharaoh would not 
prevent Him to deliver His people, not only affirms that his 
fury had been foreseen by Him, and that He had prepared 
means for restraining it, but that He had also thus designed- 
ly ordained it and indeed for this end,—that He might ex- 
hibit a more illustrious evidence of His own power.” It will 
be observed that Calvin gives as the force of the Hebrew 
word which Paul renders ‘For this purpose have I raised 
thee up’—“I have appointed”. As this is the word on which 
the doctrine and argument of the verse turns we would 
further point out that in making this quotation from Ex. 9 :16 
the apostle significantly departs from the Septuagint—the 
version then in common use and from which he most fre- 
quently quotes—and substitutes a clause for the first that is 
given by the Septuagint: instead of “On this account thou 
hast been preserved”, he gives “For this very end have I 
raised thee up”! 

But we must now consider in more detail the case of 
Pharaoh which sums up in concrete example the great con- 
troversy between man and his Maker. “For now I will 
stretch out My hand, that I may smite thee and thy people 
with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. 
And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for 
to show in thee my power; and that My name may be de- 
clared throughout all the earth” (Exodus 9:15,16). Upon 
these words we offer the following comments: 

First, we know from Exodus 14 and 15 that Pharaoh was - 
“cut off”, that he was cut off by God, that he was cut off in 
the very midst of his wickedness, that he was cut off not by 
sickness nor by the infirmities which are incident to old age, 
nor by what men term an accident, but cut off by the 1mmedt- 
ate hand of God in judgment. 

Second, it is clear that God raised up Pharaoh for this 
very end—to “cut him off,” which in the language of the 


116 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


New Testament means “destroyed.’’ God never does any- 
thing without a previous design. In giving him being, in 
preserving him through infancy and childhood, in raising 
him to the throne of Egypt, God had one end in view. That 
such was God’s purpose is clear from His words to Moses 
before he went down to Egypt to demand of Pharaoh that 
Jehovah’s people should be allowed to go a three days’ jour- 
ney into the wilderness to worship Him—‘And the Lord said 
unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that 
thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have 
put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall 
not let the people go” (Exodus 4:21). But not only so, 
God’s design and purpose was declared long before this. 
Four hundred years previously God had said to Abraham 
‘Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land 
that is not theirs’, and shall serve them; and they shall 
afflict them four hundred years; and also that nation, whom 
they shall serve, will I judge’ (Gen. 15:13, 14). From these 
words it is evident (a nation and its king being looked at as 
one in the O. T.) that God’s purpose was formed long be- 
fore He gave Pharaoh being. 

Third, an examination of God’s dealings with Pharaoh 
makes it clear that Egypt’s king was indeed a “vessel of 
wrath fitted to destruction.” Placed on Egypt’s throne, 
with the reigns of government in his hands, he sat as head of 
the nation which occupied the first rank among the peoples 
of the world. There was no other monarch on earth able to 
control or dictate to Pharaoh. To such a dizzy height did 
God raise this reprobate, and such a course was a natural and 
necessary step to prepare him for his final fate, for it is a 
Divine axiom that “pride goeth before destruction and a 
haughty spirit before a fall.” Further,—and this is deeply im- 
portant to note and highly significant—God removed from 
Pharaoh the one outward restraint which was calculated to 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 117 


act as a check upon him. The bestowing upon Pharaoh of the 
unlimited powers of a king was setting him above all legal in- 
fluence and control. But besides this God removed Moses 
from his presence and kingdom. Had Moses, who not only 
was skilled in all the wisdom of the Egyptians but also had 
been reared in Pharaoh’s household, been suffered to remain 
in close proximity to the throne, there can be no doubt but 
that his example and influence had been a powerful check 
upon the king’s wickedness and tyranny. This, though 
not the only cause, was plainly one reason why God sent 
Moses into Midian, for it was during his absence that 
Egypt’s inhuman king framed his most cruel edicts. God 
designed by removing this restraint to give Pharaoh full 
opportunity to fill up the full measure of his sins and ripen 
himself for his fully-deserved but predestined ruin. 

Fourth, God “hardened” his heart as He declared He 
would (Ex. 4:21). This is in full accord with the declara- 
tions of Holy Scripture—“The preparations of the heart in 
man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord’ 
(Prov. 16:1); “The king’s heart is in the hand of the 
Lord, as the rivers of water, He turneth it whithersoever He 
will” (Prov. 21:1). Like all other kings, Pharaoh’s heart 
was in the hand of the Lord; and God had both the right 
and the power to turn it whithersoever He pleased. And it 
pleased Him to turn it against all good. God determined 
to hinder Pharaoh from granting his request through Moses 
to let Israel go, until He had fully prepared him for his 
final overthrow, and because nothing short of this would 
fully fit him, God hardened his heart. 

Finally, it is worthy of careful consideration to note how 
the vindication of God in His dealings with Pharaoh has 
been fully attested. Most remarkable it is to discover that 
we have Pharaoh’s own testimony in favor of God and 
against himself! In Exodus 9:15 and 16 we learn how God 


118 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


had told Pharaoh for what purpose He had raised him up, 
and in verse 27 of the same chapter we are told that Pharaoh 
said, “I have sinned this time: the Lord 1s righteous, and | 
and my people are wicked.” Mark that this was said by 
Pharaoh after he knew that God had raised him up in order 
to “cut him off”, after his severe judgments had been sent 
upon him, after he had hardened his own heart. By this 
time Pharaoh was fairly ripened for judgment and fully 
prepared to decide whether God had injured him or whether 
he had sought to injure God; and he fully acknowledges 
that he had “sinned” and that God was “righteous”. Again; 
we have the witness of Moses who was fully acquainted with 
God’s conduct toward Pharaoh. He had heard at the be- 
ginning what was God’s design in connection with Pharaoh, 
he had witnessed God’s dealings with him; he had observed 
his “long-sufferance” toward this vessel of wrath fitted to 
destruction; and at last he had beheld him cut off in Divine 
judgment at the Red Sea. How then is Moses imprest? 
Does he raise the cry of injustice? Does he dare to charge 
God with unrighteousness? Far from it. Instead, he 
says “Who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the gods? 
Who is like Thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, 
doing wonders!” (Exodus 15:11). 

Was Moses moved by a vindictive spirit as he saw 
Israel’s arch-enemy “cut off” by the waters of the Red Sea? 
Surely not. But to remove forever all doubt upon this 
score, it remains to be pointed out how that saints in heaven, 
after they have witnessed the sore judgments of God, join in 
singing “the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song 
of the Lamb saying, Great and marvelous are Thy works, 
Lord God Almighty ; just and true are Thy ways, Thou King 
of Nations” (Rev. 15:3). Here then is the climax, and the 
full and final vindication of God’s dealings with Pharaoh. 
Saints in heaven join in singing the Song of Moses, in which 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION § 119 


that servant of God celebrated Jehovah’s praise in over- 
throwing Pharaoh and his hosts, declaring that in so acting 
God was not unrighteous but just and true. We must be- 
lieve, therefore, that the Judge of all the earth did right in 
creating and destroying this vessel of wrath, Pharaoh. 

The case of Pharaoh establishes the principle and illus- 
trates the doctrine of Reprobation. If God actually rep- 
robated Pharaoh we may justly conclude that He reprobates 
all others whom He did not predestinate to be conformed 
to the image of His Son. This inference the apostle Paul 
manifestly draws from the fate of Pharaoh, for in Romans 
g, after referring to God’s purpose in raising up Pharaoh, 
he continues, “therefore’. The case of Pharaoh is intro- 
duced to prove the doctrine of Reprobation as the counter- 
part of the doctrine of Election. 

In conclusion, we would say that in forming Pharaoh God 
displayed neither justice nor injustice, but only His bare 
sovereignty. As the potter is sovereign in forming vessels, 
so God is sovereign in forming moral agents. 

V 18. “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have 
mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth’. The “therefore” 
announces the general conclusion which the apostle draws 
from all he had said in the three preceding verses in denying 
that God was unrighteous in loving Jacob and hating Esau, 
and specifically it applies the principle exemplified in God’s 
dealings with Pharaoh. It traces everything back to the sov- 
ereign will of the Creator. He loves one and hates another, 
He exercises mercy toward some and hardens others, with- 
out reference to anything save His own sovereign pleasure. 

That which is most repellant to the carnal mind in the 
above verse is the reference to hardening—‘Whom He will 
He hardeneth’’—and it is just here that so many commenta- 
tors and expositors have adulterated the truth. The most 


120 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


common view is that the apostle is speaking of nothing more 
than judicial hardening, i.e., a forsaking by God because 
these subjects of His displeasure had first rejected His truth 
and forsaken Him. Those who contend for this interpreta- 
tion appeal to such scriptures as Romé 1 :19-26—“God gave 
them up’, that is (see context) those who “knew God” yet 
glorified Him not as God (v 21). Appeal is also made to 
2 Thess. 2:10-12. But it is to be noted that the word 
“harden” does not occur in.either of these passages. But 
further. We submit that Rom. 9:18 has no reference what- 
ever to judicial “hardening”. The apostle is not there speak- 
ing of those who had already turned their backs on God’s 
truth, but instead, he is dealing with God’s Sovereignty, 
God’s sovereignty as seen not only in showing mercy to 
whom He wills, but also in hardening whom He pleases. 
The exact words are “Whom He will’—not “all who have 
rejected His truth’—‘“He hardeneth”, and this coming im- 
mediately after the mention of Pharaoh clearly fixes their 
meaning. The case of Pharaoh is clear enough, though man 
by his glosses has done his best to hide the truth. In Exodus 
we read both of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, and of 
Pharaoh hardening his own heart. But which is mentioned 
first? Ex. 4:21 tells us “And the Lord said unto Moses, 
When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all 
those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine 
hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the 
people go”. Before Moses goes down into Egypt at all, 
God declares that He will harden the heart of its monarch. 
But man invariably reverses God’s order: Pharaoh hard- 
ened his heart because God had first hardened it, and not 
vice versa as we are asked to believe by men. 

As this reference to God’s hardening whom He wills is 
so much misunderstood today, we would examine it all the 
more carefully. We have already pointed out that the verse 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 121 


in which this is mentioned (18) opens with the word ‘“‘There- 
fore” thus connecting it with and drawing a conclusion from 
what precedes. In v 13 the apostle had said God had loved 
Jacob and hated Esau, and that for nothing in themselves 
personally. This declaration drew forth the question, Is 
there unrighteousness with God? and it is this question the 
apostle is still answering when he affirms, “Therefore hath 
He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will 
He hardeneth”. Hence we insist that to regard the word 
“harden” as signifying judicial obduration would be alto- 
gether trrelevant to the point under discussion. The apostle 
is treating of God’s Sovereignty as displayed in His dealings 
with His creatures. He shows that there is nothing in them 
which causes Him to act as He does, for in the case of Jacob 
and Esau their destiny was decided before they were born 
and before they had done any good or evil. Therefore, to 
say that the apostle’s words “Whom He will He hardeneth” 
signify He hardens those who have rejected His truth would 
be to find a cause in the creature for the basis of His actions 
instead of tracing them back to His own sovereign will! 
Moreover: that “hardening” in Rom. 9:18 does not refer 
to judicial obduration is further evidenced from the fact 
that understood thus the evident antithesis of the verse would 
be destroyed. The hardening is contrasted with the showing 
mercy. “Hardening” here must signify to treat with sever- 
ity. 1.e., in withholding favors and inflicting deserved pun- 
ishments. A parallel antithesis is found in Rom. 11:22 
where God’s goodness and severity are contrasted—“ Behold 
therefore the goodness and severity of God”. “Whom He 
wills He treats kindly—by having mercy on them which do 
not deserve it; and ‘whom He wills He treats severely’ ; not 
unjustly, but severely, in comparison with those He treats 
kindly; He treats them severely, in not bestowing on them 
mercy and in punishing them when and how He pleases.” 


122 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


(J. Brown, D. D., Professor of Exegetical Theology to the 
United Presbyterian Church—1857). 

V 18. “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have 
mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth’. This affirmation 
of God’s sovereign “hardening” of sinners’ hearts—in con- 
tradistinction from judicial hardening—is not alone. Mark 
the language of John 12:37-40, “But though He had done 
so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him: 
that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, 
which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and 
to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? There- 
fore they could not believe (why?), because that Isaiah 
said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their 
hearts (why? Because they had refused to believe on Christ ? 
This is the popular belief, but mark the answer of Scripture) 
that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with 
their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” Now, 
reader, it is just a question as to whether or not you will be- 
lieve what God has revealed in His Word. It is not a mat- 
ter of prolonged searching or profound study, but a child- 
like spirit which is needed in order to understand this doc- 
trine. 

V 19 “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet 
find fault? For who hath resisted His will?” Is not this 
the very objection which is urged today? The force of 
the apostle’s questions here seem to be this: Since everything 
is dependent on God’s will, which is irreversible, and since 
this will of God, according to which He can do everything as 
sovereign—since He can have mercy on whom He wills to 
have mercy, and can refuse mercy and inflict punishment 
on whom He chooses to do so—why does He not will to 
have mercy on all, so as to make them obedient, and thus put 
finding of fault out of court? Now it should be particularly 
noted that the apostle does not repudiate the ground on 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 123 


which the objection rests. He does not say God does not 
find fault. Nor does he say, Men may resist His will. 
Furthermore ; he does not explain away the objection by say- 
ing: You have altogether misapprehended my meaning when 
I said ‘Whom He wills He treats kindly, and whom He wills 
He treats severely’. But he says, first, this is an objection 
you have no right to make; and then, This is an objection you 
have no reason to make (vide Dr. Brown). The objection 
was utterly inadmissible, for it was a replying against God. 
It was to complain about, argue against what God had done! 

V 19 “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find 
fault? For who hath resisted His will?’ The language 
which the apostle here puts into the mouth of the objector 
is so plain and pointed that misunderstanding ought to be 
impossible. Why doth He yet find fault? Now, reader, 
what can these words mean? Formulate your own reply 
before considering ours. Can the force of the apostle’s ques- 
tion be any other than this: If it is true that God has “mercy” 
on whom He wills, and also “hardens” whom He wills, then 
what becomes of human responsibility? In such a case men 
are nothing better than puppets, and if this be true then it 
would be unjust for God to “find fault” with His helpless 
creatures. Mark the word “then’—Thou wilt say then unto 
me—he states the (false) inference or conclusion which the 
objector draws from what the apostle had been saying. And 
mark, my reader, the apostle readily saw the doctrine he had 
formulated would raise this very objection, and unless what 
we have written throughout this book provokes, in some at 
least, (all whose carnal minds are not subdued by divine 
grace) the same objection, then it must be either because we 
have not presented the doctrine which is set forth in Rom. 9, 
or else because human nature has changed since the apostle’s 
day. Consider now the remainder of the verse (19). The 
apostle repeats the same objection in a slightly different form 


124 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


—repeats it so that his meaning may not be misunderstood— 
namely, “For who hath resisted His will?” It is clear then 
that the subject under immediate discussion relates to God’s 
‘will’, i.e., His sovereign ways, which confirms what we 
have said above upon vs 17 and 18 where we contended that 
it is not judicial hardening which is in view (that 1s, hard- 
ening because of previous rejection of the truth) but sov- 
ereign “hardening”, that is, “hardening” for no other rea- 
son than that which inheres in the sovereign will of God. 
And hence the question ‘““Who hath resisted His will?’ What 
then does the apostle say in reply to these objections? 

V 20 “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest agamst 
God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed 1t, 
Why hast thou made me thus?” The apostle, then, did not 
say the objection was pointless and groundless, instead, he 
rebukes the objector for his impiety. He reminds him that 
he is merely a “man”, a creature, and that as such it is most 
unseemly and impertinent for him to “reply (argue, or rea- 
son against) God”. Furthermore, he reminds him that he 
is nothing more than a “thing formed”, and therefore, it is 
madness and blasphemy to rise up against the Former Him- 
self. Ere leaving this verse it should be pointed out that its 
closing words “Why hast thou made me thus” help us to de- 
termine, unmistakably, the precise subject under discussion. 
In the light of the immediate context what can be the force 
of the “thus”? What, but as in the case of Esau, why hast 
thou made me an object of “hatred”? What, but as in 
the case of Pharaoh, Why hast thou made me simply to 
“harden” me? What other meaning can fairly be assigned 
to it? 

It is highly important to keep clearly before us that the 
apostle’s object throughout this passage is to treat of God’s 
Sovereignty in dealing with, on the one hand, those whom He 
loves—vessels unto honour and vessels of mercy, and also, 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 125 


on the other hand, with those whom He “hates” and “hard- 
ens’’—vessels unto dishonour and vessels of wrath. 

Vv 21-23 “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of 
the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another 
unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew His wrath, 
and to make His power known, endured with much long- 
suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And 
that He might make known the riches of His glory on the 
vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory.” 
In these verses the apostle furnishes a ful] and final reply 
to the objections raised in v 19. First, he asks, “Hath not 
the potter power over the clay?” etc. It is to be noted the 
word here translated “power” is a different one in the Greek 
from the one rendered “power” in v 22 where it can only sig- 
nify His might, but here in v 21 the “power” spoken of must 
refer to the Creator’s rights or sovereign prerogatives, that 
this is so appears from the fact that the same Greek word is 
employed in John 1 :12—“‘As many as received Him, to them 
gave He power to become the sons of God”—which, as is — 
well known, means the right or privilege to become the sons 
of God. The R. V. employs “right” both in John 1:12 and 
Rom. 9 :21. 

V 21 “Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same 
lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto 
dishonour?” That the “potter” here is God Himself is cer- 
tain from the previous verse where the apostle asks ‘““‘Who 
art thou that repliest against God?” and then, speaking: in 
the terms of the figure he was about to use, continues, ‘Shall 
the thing formed say to Him that formed it” etc. Some 
there are who would rob these words of their force by argu- 
ing that while the human potter makes certain vessels to 
be used for less honorable purposes than others, neverthe- 
less, they are designed to fill some useful place. But the 
apostle does not here say, Hath not the potter power over the 


126 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto an honor- 
able use and another to a less honorable use, but he speaks 
of some “vessels” being made “unto dishonour”. It is true, 
of course, that God’s wisdom will yet be fully vindicated, 
inasmuch as the destruction of the reprobate will promote 
His glory—in what way the next verse tells us. 

Ere passing to the next verse let us summarize the teach- 
ing of this and the two previous ones. In v 19 two questions 
are asked, “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet 
find fault? For who hath resisted His will?” To those ques- 
tions a threefold answer is returned. First, in v 20 the apos- 
tle denies the creature the right to sit in judgment upon the 
ways of the Creator—“Nay but, O man who art thou that 
repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him 
that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus?” The apos- 
tle insists that the rectitude of God’s will must not be ques- 
tioned. Whatever He does must be right. Second, in v 21 
the apostle declares that the Creator has the right to dispose 
of His creatures as He sees fit—‘““Hath not the Potter power 
over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto 
honor, and another unto dishonor?” It should be carefully 
noted that the word for “power” here is excousia—an entire- 
ly different word from the one translated “power” in the fol- 
lowing verse (“to make known His power’) where it is 
dunaton. In the words “Hath not the Potter power over the 
clay?” it must be God’s power justly exercised, which is in 
view—the exercise of God’s rights consistently with His 
justice,—because the mere assertion of His omnipotency 
would be no such answer as God would return to the ques- 
tions asked in v 19. Third, in vv 22, 23, the apostle gives the 
reasons why God proceeds differently with one of His crea- 
tures from another: on the one hand, it is to “shew His 
wrath” and to “make His power known”; on the other hand, 
it is to “make known the riches of His glory.” 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 127 


“Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same 
lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto 
dishonour ?” Certainly God has the right to do this because 
He is the Creator. Does He exercise this right? Yes, as 
vs 13 and 17 clearly show us—‘For this same purpose have I] 
raised thee (Pharaoh) up”. 

V 22 “What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to 
make His power known, endured with much longsuffering 
the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction’. Here the apostle 
tells us in the second place, why God acts thus, i.e., differ- 
ently with different ones—having mercy on some and hard- 
ening others, making one vessel “unto honour” and another 
“unto dishonour”. Observe, that here in v 22 the apostle 
first mentions “vessels of wrath” before he refers in v 23 to 
the “vessels of mercy”. Why is this? The answer to this 
question is of first importance: we reply, Because it is the 
“vessels of wrath” who are the subjects in view before the 
objector in v 19. Two reasons are given why God makes 
some “‘vessels unto dishonour”: first, to “shew His wrath”, 
and secondly “to make His power known”’—both of which 
were exemplified in the case of Pharaoh. 

One point in the above verse requires separate consider- 
ation—‘Vessels of wrath fitted to destruction”. The usual 
explanation which is given of these words is that the vessels 
of wrath fit themselves to destruction, that is, fit themselves 
by virtue of their wickedness, and it is argued that as there 
is no need for God to “fit them to destruction”, because they 
are already fitted by their own depravity, and that this must 
be the real meaning of this expression. Now if by “destruc- 
tion” we understand punishment, it is perfectly true that the 
non-elect do “fit themselves” for every one will be judged 
“according to his works”; and further, we freely grant that 
subjectively the non-elect do fit themselves for destruction. 
But the point to be decided is, Is this what the apostle is here 


128 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


referring to? And, without hesitation, we reply it is not. 
Go back to vs 11-13: did Esau fit himself to be an object of 
God’s hatred, or was he not such before he was born? Again ; 
did Pharaoh fit himself for destruction, or did not God hard- 
en his heart before the plagues were sent upon Egypt? 

Rom. 9:22 is clearly a continuation in thought of v 21, 
and v 21 is part of the apostle’s reply to the questions raised 
in v 20: therefore, to fairly follow out the figure, it must be 
God Himself who “fits” unto destruction the vessels of 
wrath. Should it be asked how God does this, the answer, 
necessarily, is, objectively,—He fits the non-elect unto de- 
struction by His fore-ordinating decrees. Should it be asked 
why God does this, the answer must be, To promote His 
own glory. “The sum of the apostle’s answer here is, that 
the grand object of God, both in the election and the reproba- 
tion of men, is that which is paramount to all things 
else in the creation of men, namely, His own glory” (Rob’t. 
Haldane). 

V 23 “And that He might make known the riches of Hts 
glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared 
unto glory.’ The only point in this verse which demands at- 
tention is the fact that the “vessels of mercy” are here said 
to be “afore prepared unto glory”. Many have pointed out 
that the previous verse does not say the vessels of wrath 
were afore prepared unto destruction, and from this omis- 
sion they have concluded that we must understand the refer- 
ence there to the non-elect fitting themselves in time, rather 
than God ordaining them for destruction from all eternity. 
But this conclusion by no means follows. We need to look 
back to v 21 and note the figure which is there employed. 
“Clay” is inanimate matter, corrupt, decomposed, and there- 
fore a fit substance to represent fallen humanity. As then 
the apostle is contemplating God’s sovereign dealings with 
humanity in view of the fall, He does not say the vessels of 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 129 


wrath were afore prepared unto destruction, for the obvious 
and sufficient reason that it was not until after the fall that 
they became (in themselves) what is here symbolised by the 
‘clay’. All that is necessary to refute the erroneous conclu- 
sion referred to above is to point out that what is said of the 
vessels of wrath is not that they are fit for destruction (which 
is the word that would have been used if the reference had 
been to them fitting themselves by their own wickedness) but 
fitted to destruction, which, in the light of the whole context, 
must mean a sovereign ordination to destruction by the Crea- 
tor. We quote here the pointed words of Calvin on this pass- 
age—*There are vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 
that is, given up and appointed to destruction; there are also 
vessels of wrath, that is, made and formed for this end, that 
they may be examples of God’s vengeance and displeasure. 
Though in the second clause the apostle asserts more express- 
ly, that it is God who prepared the elect for glory, as he had 
simply said before that the reprobate are vessels prepared for 
destruction, there is yet no doubt but that the preparation of 
both is connected with the secret counsel of God. Paul 
might have otherwise said, that the reprobate gave up or 
cast themselves into destruction, but he intimates here, 
that before they are born they are destined to their lot”. 
With this we are in hearty accord. Rom. 9:22 does not say 
the vessels of wrath fitted themselves, nor does it say they 
are fit for destruction, instead, it declares they are “fitted 
to destruction” and the context shows plainly it is God who 
thus “fits” them objectively by His eternal decrees. 

Though Romans 9 contains the fullest setting forth of the 
doctrine of Reprobation, there are other passages which refer 
to it, one or two of which we will now look at, briefly— | 

“A Stone of stumbling, and a Rock of offence, even to 
them which stumble at the Word, being disobedient: where- 
unto also they were appointed” (1 Pet. 2:8). In certain cir- 


130 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


cles it is customary to dismiss this Scripture by saying that 
“Gt refers to a class, not persons, who are ‘appointed ;’ that 
is, to all unbelievers of this character.” How this helps the 
cause of those who reject the doctrine of ‘Reprobation’ we 
fail to see, for a “class” is made up of individuals, and the 
individuals who comprise the class spoken of in 1 Pet. 2:8 
are said to be “appointed” to stumble at the Word and be 
disobedient. The “whereunto” manifestly looks back to the 
stumbling at the Word and the disobedience. The word “ap- 
pointed” here (tithemi) is the same as in 1 Thess. 5 :9—‘‘For 
God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation 
by our Lord Jesus Christ.” Why say that God has “not ap- 
pointed us to wrath” if He has not appointed any to wrath”? 

We quote now from the commentary of Archbishop Leigh- 
ton (1748) on this passage, and none who have read his 
most valuable work on First Peter are likely to accuse him 
of Hyper-Calvinism—‘“ ‘Whereunto also they were appoint- 
ed. This the apostle adds, for the further satisfaction of 
believers on this point, how it is that so many rejected Christ, 
and stumble at Him; telling them plainly, that the secret 
purpose of God is accomplished im this: God having deter- 
mined to glorify His justice on impenitent sinners, as He 
shows His rich mercy in them that believe. This is certain, 
that the thoughts of God are all not less just in themselves, 
than deep and unsoundable by us. His justice appears clear, 
in that man’s destruction is always the fruit of his own sin. 
But: to give causes of God’s decrees without (outside of) 
Himself, is neither agreeable with the primitive being of the 
nature of God, nor with the doctrine of the Scriptures. This 
is sure, that God is not bound to give us further account of 
these things, and we are bound not to ask it. Let these two 
words, as Augustine says, answer all, ‘Who art thou O man?’ 
and ‘O, the depth’ (Rom. 9:20; 11:33).” The pity is that 
this and other excellent commentaries written one and two 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION © 1381 


hundred years ago are not in circulation today at least as 
widely as many others written nearer our own times and 
which, though penned by those claiming to have received 
much more light than those who went before them, are, nev- 
ertheless, far inferior in spiritual discernment, lucidity and 
scholarship.* 

“But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and 
destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; 
and shall utterly perish in their own corruption” (2 Pet. 
2:12). Here, again, every effort is made to escape the plain 
teaching of this solemn passage. We are told that it is the 
“brute beasts” who are “made to be taken and destroyed” 
and not the persons here likened to them. All that is needed 
to refute such sophistry is to inquire wherein lies the point 
of analogy between the “these” (men) and the “brute 
beasts”? What is the force of the “as’—but “these as 
brute beasts’? Clearly, it is that “these”? men as brute 
beasts, are the ones who like animals are “made to be taken 
and destroyed”: the closing words confirming this by re- 
iterating the same sentiment—‘and shall utterly perish in 
their own corruption.” 

“For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were 
before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, 
turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and deny- 
ing the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 4). 


*Bishop Leighton’s commentary on First Peter is yet to be found, 
occasionally, in second-hand book stores, and we warmly recommend 
it to all who may be fortunate enough to find a copy. Philip Dodd- 
ridge (the hymn writer of blessed memory) wrote in his Preface 
to this work :—‘“There is a spirit in archbishop Leighton I never met 
with in any human writings; nor can I read many lines in them with- 
out being moved. Indeed, it would be difficult for me to say where, 
but in the Sacred Oracles, I have ever found such heart-affecting les- 
sons of simplicity and humility, candor and benevolence, exalted _pi- 
ety, without the least tincture of enthusiasm, and an entire mortifica- 
tion to every earthly interest.” 


132 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


Attempts have been made to escape the obvious force of this 
verse by substituting a different translation of the Greek 
for that given in the King James Version. The revised ver- 
sion reads, “For there are certain men crept in privily, even 
they who were of old written of beforehand unto this con- 
demnation” and in the margin we have “set forth” as the 
alternative for “written.” The assumption is that Jude is 
here referring to the Old Testament Scriptures which an- 
nounced beforehand the condemnation of these “certain 
men.” Now what is required here is not so much a pro- 
found knowledge of Greek as an acquaintance with the gen- 
eral tenor of Scripture. The point to be determined is not 
whether “prographo”’ signifies “written of beforehand” but 
what does the Old Testament teach concerning these “cer- 
tain men” of Jude 4. The answers to one or two simple ques- 
tions will enable every reader to decide for himself—even 
though he knows not a single word of Greek. To what does 
the apostle refer when he says “there are certain men crept 
in unawares’? Into what had they “crept’? Can there be 
any doubt as to the right answer? Was it not into the Chris- 
tian Assemblies? And where in the Old Testament is there 
anything “written” about “certain men” creeping into Chris- 
tian Assemblies? Where indeed! No; the translation giv- 
en by the revisers is absolutely untenable if it be examined in 
the light of the Word itself, and the fact that an alternative 
rendering is given in the margin is proof that it failed to 
satisfy many of the revisers themselves. The truth is that the 
marginal rendering of “set forth’ is a much more accurate 
rendering of the Greek than is “written of beforehand.” The 
Englishman’s Greek New Testament “Interlinear Literal 
Translation,” which has few equals and perhaps no supe- 
riors, renders the first part of Jude 4 as follows: “For came 
in stealthily certain men, they who of old have been marked 
out to this sentence.” Who was it that “marked out” these 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 133 


certain men to this condemnatory sentence?) Who but God 
Himself! There is then no good reason at all for departing 
from the reading of the King James version—‘For there are 
certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old or- 
dained to this condemnation.” It is only unbelief which 
would evade its plain force. 

Summing up the teaching of these four passages, we learn 
that God makes some vessels “unto dishonor” and by His 
eternal decree fits, objectively, these vessels of wrath “to 
destruction” in order that He might make known His power, 
just as He raised up Pharaoh for the same purpose; that 
these same individuals are “appointed” to stumble at His 
Word, as were the Jews of Christ’s day (John 12:40) ; that 
they are, like brute beasts, “made to be taken and destroyed,” 
just as Judas was; that they were before of old “ordained 
to this condemnation.” And in the face of these passages we 
affirm what is now—when men will not endure sound doc- 
trine—almost universally denied, namely, that the Word of 
God plainly teaches both Predestination and Reprobation, or 
to use the words of Calvin “Eternal election includes God’s 
predestination of some to salvation and others to destruc- 
tion.” 

We must now consider a number of passages which are 
often quoted with the purpose of showing that God has 
not fitted certain vessels to destruction or ordained certain 
men to condemnation. First, we cite Ezek. 33:11, “As I 
live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of 
the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live. 
Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, 
O house of Israel?” The first thing to be remarked about 
this passage is that it must be read in the light of its con- 
text. If we note its setting it will be seen that these words 
cannot be extended to all mankind but have reference to the 
nation of Israel in a by-gone day. The previous verse to 


134 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


the one quoted reads, “Therefore, O thou son of man, speak 
unto the house of Israel; Thus ye speak, saying, If our trans- 
gressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, 
how should we then live?” The ones whom Ezekiel was 
called upon to address were fearful lest all hope of Divine 
mercy was in vain. They had been carried into captivity 
and were thoroughly dejected. God’s displeasure rested up- 
on them both for their own sins and for the sins of their 
fathers. But Ezekiel is sent to assure them that all hope was 
not in vain, that God was ready to deal with them in mercy, 
and that if they would turn from their evil way they should 
live and not die—even though they had committed innumer- 
able offences against God, yet an offer of mercy was still 
extended to them. In a word then, the prophet was sent 
to Israel to inspire the penitent with hopes of pardon. Ere 
turning from this passage we cannot do better than quote 
Calvin’s excellent comments upon it: “Let us observe, there- 
fore, the design of the prophet in saying that God has no 
pleasure in the death of the wicked; it is to assure the pious | 
of God’s readiness to pardon them immediately on their 
repentance, and to shew the impious the aggravation of their 
sin in rejecting such great compassion and kindness of God. 
Repentance, therefore, will always be met by Divine mercy ; 
but on whom repentance is bestowed, we are clearly taught 
by Ezekiel himself, as well as by all the prophets and apos- 
Leda 

Matt. 25:41 is often quoted to show that God has not fitted 
certain vessels to destruction—‘“Depart from Me, ye cursed, 
into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels.” 
This is, in fact, one of the principal verses relied upon to dis- 
prove the doctrine of Reprobation. But we submit that the 
emphatic word here is not “for” but “Devil.” This verse 
(see context) sets forth the severity of the judgment which 
awaits the lost. In other words, the above scripture ex- 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 135 


presses the awfulness of the everlasting fire rather than the 
subjects of it—if the fire be “prepared for the Devil and his 
angels” then how intolerable it will be! If the place of eternal 
torment into which the damned shall be cast is the same as 
that in which God’s arch-enemy will suffer, how dreadful 
must that place be. 

Again: if God has chosen only certain ones to salvation, 
why are we told that God “now commandeth all men every- 
where to repent” (Acts 17:30) ? That God commandeth “all 
men” to repent is but the enforcing of His righteous claims 
as the moral Governor of the world. How could He do less, 
seeing that all men everywhere have sinned against Him? 
Furthermore; that God commandeth all men everywhere to 
repent argues the universality of creature responsibility. But 
this scripture does not declare that it is God’s pleasure to 
“give repentance” (Acts 5:31) to all men everywhere. That 
the apostle Paul did not believe God gave repentance to eve- 
ry soul is clear from his words in 2 Tim. 2:25—“In meek- 
‘ness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God per- 
adventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging 
of the truth.” 

Again; we are asked, If God has “ordained” only certain 
ones unto eternal life, then why do we read that God “will 
have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of 
the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4)? In reply we would say, In Scrip- 
ture God’s “will” sometimes expresses that which He ap- 
proves, at others, that which He purposes. God approves 
of all sinners turning to Him, and turns away none who do, 
but He has not purposed the salvation of every sinner; if He 
had, then His purpose would be effected, for “what His soul 
desireth, even that He doeth” (Job 23:13). 

Again; we are asked, Does not Scripture declare, again 
and again, that God is no “respecter of persons’? We an- 
swer, it certainly does, and God’s electing grace proves it. 


136 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


The seven sons of Jesse, though older and physically su- 
perior to David, are passed by, while the young shepherd boy 
is exalted to Israel’s throne. The scribes and lawyers pass 
tn-noticed, and ignorant fishermen are chosen to be the apos- 
tles of the Lamb. Divine truth is hidden from the wise and 
prudent and is revealed to babes instead. The great ma- 
jority of the wise and noble are ignored, while the weak, the 
base, the despised, are called and saved. Harlots and pub- 
licans are sweetly compelled to come in to the gospel feast, 
while self-righteous Pharisees are suffered to perish in their 
immaculate morality. Truly, God is “no respecter” of per- 
sons or He would not have saved me. 

Another passage which is often brought forward to re- 
fute the teaching that God has predestined only certain ones 
to salvation is 2 Pet. 3:9—‘The Lord is not slack concerning 
His promise, as some men count slackness ; but is longsuffer- 
ing to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all 
should come to repentance.” A very few words are all that 
is required to show there is nothing in this verse which con- 
flicts with what we have said above. All that is needed is to 
pay careful attention to the antecedents of the pronouns. 
Not willing that any should perish—any of whom? Clearly, 
of the “usward.” And who are they? The ones referred to 
as “beloved” in the opening verse of the chapter to whom 
the apostle says he addresses “this second epistle.” If we 
turn back to his first epistle and note to whom it is addressed 
we discover the remote and original antecedent of the “any,” 
“usward” and “beloved.” The first epistle of Peter is ad- 
dressed to the “strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Gala- 
tia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” and these are declared 
to be “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Fa- 
ther” (1 Pet. 1:1,2). God then is not willing that “any” 
of His “elect’ should perish. It is on their account that God 
has exercised such longsufferance toward the world which is 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 137 


guilty of the death of His Son. It is because God is not 
willing that any of His “elect” should perish that He has 
delayed so long the fulfillment of His “promise’—i. e., to 
send back His Son. Christ will not return until the fullness 
of the Gentiles is come in, that is, until the Church which 
is His body is complete, and that will not be until the last 
of God’s elect have been gathered in. 

That the Doctrine of Reprobation is a “hard saying” to 
the carnal mind is readily acknowledged—yet, is it any “hard- 
er” than that of eternal punishment? That it is clearly re- 
vealed in Scripture we have sought to demonstrate, and it is 
not for us to pick and choose from the truths revealed in 
God’s Word. Let those who are inclined to receive those 
doctrines which commend themselves to their judgment and 
who reject those which they cannot fully understand, re- 
member those scathing words of our Lord’s, “O fools, and 
slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken”’ 
(Luke 24:25) : Fools because slow of heart; slow of heart, 
not dull of head. 

Once more we would avail ourself of the language of Cal- 
vin: “But, as I have hitherto only recited such things as are 
delivered without any obscurity or ambiguity in the Scrip- 
tures, let persons who hesitate not to brand with ignominy 
those Oracles of heaven, beware what kind of opposition 
they make. For, if they pretend ignorance, with a desire to 
be commended for their modesty, what greater instance of 
pride can be conceived, than to oppose one little word to 
the authority of God! as, ‘It appears otherwise to me,’ or ‘I 
would rather not meddle with this subject.’ But if they 
openly censure, what will they gain by their puny attempts 
against heaven? Their petulance, indeed, is no novelty; for 
im all ages there have been impious and profane men, who 
have virulently opposed this doctrine. But they shall feel 
the truth of what the Spirit long ago declared by the mouth 


138 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


of David, that God ‘is clear when He judgeth’ (Psa. 51 mt & 
David obliquely hints at the madness of men who display 
such excessive presumption amidst their insignificance, as not 
only to dispute against God, but to arrogate to themselves 
the power of condemning Him. In the meantime, he briefly 
suggests, that God is unaffected by all the blasphemies which 
they discharge against heaven, but that He dissipates the 
mists of calumny, and illustriously displays His righteous- 
ness; our faith, also, being founded on the Divine Word, 
and therefore, superior to all the world, from its exaltation 
looks down with contempt upon those mists” (John Calvin). 

In closing this chapter we propose to quote from the writ- 
ings of some of the standard theologians since the days of 
the Reformation, not that we would buttress our own state- 
ments by an appeal to human authority however venerable or 
ancient, but in order to show that what we have advanced 
in these pages is no novelty of the twentieth century, no here- 
sy of the ‘latter days’ but, instead, a doctrine which has been 
definitely formulated and commonly taught by many of the 
most pious and scholarly students of Holy Writ. 

“Predestination we call the decree of God, by which He 
has determined in Himself, what He would have to become 
of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created 
with a similar destiny: but eternal life is foreordained for 
some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, there- 
fore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we 
say, he is predestinated either to life or to death”—from 
John Calvin’s “Institutes” (1536 A. D.) Book III, Chapter 
XXI entitled “Eternal Election, or God’s Predestination of 
Some to Salvation and of Others to Destruction.” 

We ask our readers to mark well the above language. 
A perusal of it should show that what the present writer 
has advanced in this chapter is not “Hyper-Calvinism” but 
real Calvinism, pure and simple. Our purpose in making 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 139 


this remark is to show that those who, not acquainted with 
Calvin’s writings, in their ignorance condemn as ultra-Cal- 
vinism that which is simply a reiteration of what Calvin him- 
self taught—a reiteration because that prince of theologians 
as well as his humble debtor have both found this doctrine 
in the Word of God itself. 

The “Larger Westminister Catechism” (1688 )—adopted 
by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church—de- 
clares “God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of His 
mere love, for the praise of His glorious grace, to be man- 
ifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory, and in 
Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means 
thereof; and also, according to His sovereign power, and the 
unsearchable counsel of His own will (whereby He extend- 
eth or withholdeth favor as He pleases), hath passed by, and 
fore-ordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to be for their 
sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of His justice”, 

Arch-bishop Ussher, the celebrated chronologist, asked, 
“Did God, before He made man, determine to save some and 
reject others? Yes, surely, before they had done either good 
or evil, God in His eternal counsel set them apart.” 

In his exposition of John’s Gospel (1647) John Trapp— 
C. H. Spurgeon’s favorite among the Puritans—commenting 
upon John 10:26 (“But ye believe not, because ye are not 
of My sheep’) said “Reprobates cannot believe, yea they can- 
not but resist the external offers of God’s grace.” 

“It doth sometimes imply one that is designed by God's 
decree to death and damnation; as, in John 17:12, Judas is 
called a son of perdition; that is, one who is ordained by 
God to perdition” (Thos. Goodwin, D. D. 1650). 

In his exposition of Jude 4, Thos. Manton (one of Crom- 
well’s chaplains) says, This “is an eternal decree. God’s 
internal acts are the same with His essence, and therefore 
before all time, as believers are elected before all worlds, 


140 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


(Eph. 1:4) so are sinners reprobated ; they are both in time 
and order before ever the creature was. Election and Rep- 
robation are not a thing of yesterday, and subsequent to the 
acts of the creature, but from all eternity. There 1s a decree 
and preordination, not only a naked foresight, of them that 
perish. Some Lutherans say that Predestination is proper 
only to the elect, but as to the Reprobate there is only a pre- 
science or naked foreknowledge: no foreordination, lest they 
should make God the author of the creature's sin and ruin. 
But these men fear where no fear is; the Scriptures show 
that the greatest evil that ever was, did not only fall under 
the foreknowledge, but also the determinate counsel of God 
(Acts 2:23); it was not only foreknown, but unchangeably 
ordained and determined” (Thos. Manton’s works, 1660— 
Vol. 5, page 128). 

“Yet farther, to evidence that this purpose of God or in- 
tention spoken of is peculiar and distinguishing, there 1s ex- 
press mention of another sort of men who are not thus 
chosen but who lie under the purpose of God as to a con- 
trary lot and condition—'The Lord hath made all things for 
Himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil’ (Prov. 
16:4). They are persons ‘whose names are not written in 
the Lamb’s book of Life’ (Rev. 13:8); ‘being of old or- 
dained to condemnation’ (Jude 4); being as ‘natural brute 
beasts, made to be taken and destroyed’ (2 Pet. 2 ‘12 ). ee 
therefore the apostle distinguishing hath divided all men 
into those who are ‘appointed to wrath,’ and those who are 
appointed to the obtaining of salvation by Jesus Christ’ ” 
(John Owen, 1665 A. D. Vol. 12, page 555). 

Commenting upon Rom. 9:22, “What if God willing to 
shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured 
with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to de- 
struction”, Jonathan Edwards (Vol. 4, p. 300—1743 A.D.) 
says, “How awful doth the majesty of God appear in the 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 141 


dreadfulness of His anger! This we may learn to be one end 
of the damnation of the wicked.” 

“The date of this decree is as ancient as eternity itself. 
Wicked men were ‘before of old ordained to this condemna- 
tion’ (Jude 4). If men were chosen from the beginning, 
that is from all eternity, to salvation, then those not chosen, 
or not ordained to eternal life, were foreordained as surely 
to condemnation. Indeed, there can be no new decree, ap- 
pointment, or purpose, made by God in time. If the decree 
of election is from eternity, that of rejection must be so too; 
since the one cannot be without the other’’—John Gill—pred- 
ecessor of C. H. Spurgeon. 

In his commentary on Romans—than which, in our judg- 
ment, there is no superior—Robert Haldane (1814) wfote, 
“It may be asked why God hated him (Esau) before he 
sinned personally; and human wisdom has proved its folly, 
by endeavoring to soften the word hated into something less 
than hated: but the man who submits like a little child to the 
Word of God, will find no difficulty in seeing in what sense 
Esau was worthy of the hatred of God before he was born. 
He sinned in Adam, and therefore was properly an object of 
God’s hatred as well as fallen Adam. There is no other view 
which will ever account for this language and His treatment 
Oia satint en 2): By many this has been explained, Esau 
have I loved less. But Esau was not the object of any de- 
gree of the divine love, and the word hate never signifies to 
love less. It might as well be said, that the phrase, Jacob 
have I loved does not signify that God really loved Jacob, 
but that to love here signifies only to hate less, and that all 
that is meant by the expression is that God hated Jacob less 
than He hated Esau. Esau was justly the object of hatred 
before he was born, because he was viewed in Adam as a 
sinner. Jacob was justly the object of God’s love before he 
was born because he was viewed in Christ as righteous.” 


142 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


Commenting on Rom. 9 :17—‘‘For this purpose have I raised 
thee up’—Mr. Haldane says, ‘Here is the destination of 
Pharaoh to his destruction”. 

Thomas Chalmers in his “Lectures on Romans” (1819- 
1823) writes, “This doctrine of predestination ought never 
to be a stumbling-block in the way of your entertaining the 
overtures of the Gospel. Leave it to God Himself to har- 
monize these everlasting decrees, by which He has distin- 
guished between the elect and the reprobate, with His present 
declarations of good will to-one and to all of the human fam- 
lyase 

Said Moses Stuart of the Theological Seminary, Andover, 
in his commentary on Romans (1832), “Those who con- 
tend against this sentiment contend against what is every day 
exhibited before their eyes. Why was this man born white 
and that one black? Why is this child born and nurtured in 
the bosom of a pious family, and that one in the midst of 
robbers and murderers? The children had done neither ‘good 
or evil’, when their lot was decided. This no one can deny. 
Then, in the next place, is not their eternal condition con- 
nected with their means of grace, their pious nurture, their 
present condition and associations in life? And whe-placed 
them in their present condition? All nature, as well as the 
Bible, proclaims this doctrine of divine sovereignty.” 

Said Dr. J. Brown, Professor of Exegetical Theology to 
the United Presbyterian Church (1857), “Has not God the 
power and right, out of the aggregate body of human beings 
who are to exist in all ages, to fix the everlasting destiny of 
individuals—to appoint some to everlasting happiness, and 
others to everlasting misery? We apprehend that an affirma- 
tive answer to both of these questions is the true one’. 

“Fitted to destruction” (Rom. 9:22). After declaring this 
phrase admits of two interpretations, Dr. Hodge—perhaps 
the best known and most widely read commentator on Ro- 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 143 


mans—says, “The other interpretation assumes that the 
reference is to God and that the Greek word for ‘fitted’ has 
its full participle force; prepared (by God): for destruc- 
tion.” This, says Dr. Hodge, “Is adopted not only by the 
majority of Augustinians, but also by many Lutherans”, 

“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowl- 
edge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and 
His ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind 
of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor? or who hath 
first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him 
again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all 
things : to whom be glory forever, Amen” (Rom. 11 :33-36).* 

*“Of Him”—His will is the origin of all existence; “through” or 


“by Him”’—He is the Creator and Controller Olfall an tomrimpea— 
everything promotes His glory in their final end. 


x 


CHAPTER SIX: 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION. 


“For of Him, and thro’ Him, and to Him, are all things: 
to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” 
Romans 11:36. 


5 


y 


VI. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 


Rp AS God fore-ordained everything that comes to 
{ ) pass? Has he decreed that what is was to have been? 
xeaG In the final analysis this is only another way of ask- 
ing, is God now governing the world and everyone and every- 
thing in it? If God is governing the world then is He gov- 
erning it according to a definite purpose, or aimlessly and at 
random? If He is governing it according to some purpose 
then when was that purpose made? Is God continually chang- 
ing His purpose and making a new one every day, or was His 
purpose formed from the beginning? Are God’s actions, 
like ours, regulated by the change of circumstances, or are 
they the outcome of His eternal purpose? If God formed a 
purpose before man was created then is that purpose going 
to be executed according to His original designs and is He 
now working toward that end? What saith the Scriptures ? 
They declare God is One “who worketh all things after the 
counsel of His own will” (Eph. 1:11). 

Few who read this book are likely to call into question 
the statement that God knows and foreknows all things, 
but perhaps many would hesitate to go further than this. 
Yet is it not self-evident that if God foreknows all things 
He has also fore-ordained all things? Is it not clear that 
God foreknows what will be because He has decreed what 
shall be? God’s foreknowledge is not the cause of events, 
rather are events the effects of His eternal purpose. When 
God has decreed a thing shall be He knows it will be. In 
the nature of things there cannot be anything known as 
what shall be, unless it is certain to be, and there is nothing 
certain to be unless God has ordained it shall be. Take the 


148 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


Crucifixion as an illustration. On this point the teaching of 
Scripture is as clear as a sunbeam. Christ as the Lamb 
whose blood was to be shed was “‘‘foreordained before the 
foundation of the world” (1 Pet. 1:20). Having then 
“ordained” the slaying of the Lamb God knew He would 
be “led to the slaughter” and therefore made it known ac- 
cordingly through Isaiah the prophet. The Lord Jesus was 
not “delivered” up by God fore-knowing it before it took 
place, but by His fixed counsel and fore-ordination (Acts 
2:23). Fore-knowledge of future events then is founded 
upon God’s decrees, hence if God foreknows everything 
that is to be it is because He has determined in Himself from 
all eternity everything which will be—‘Known unto God are 
all His works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15: 
18), which shows that God has a plan, that God did not 
begin His work at random or without a knowledge of how 
His plan would succeed. 

God created all things. This truth no one, who bows to 
the testimony of Holy Writ, will question, nor would any 
such be prepared to argue that the work of creation was an 
accidental work. God first formed the purpose to create 
and then put forth the creative act in fulfilment ot that 
purpose. All real Christians will readily adopt the words 
of the Psalmist and say, “O Lord, how manifold are Thy 
works! in wisdom hast Thou made them all.” Will any who 
endorse what we have just said deny that God purposed to 
govern the world which He created? Surely the creation of 
the world was not the end of God’s purpose concerning it. 
Surely He did not determine simply to create the world and 
-place man in it and then leave both to their fortunes. It 
must be apparent that God has some great end or ends in 
view, worthy of His infinite perfections and that He is now 
governing the world so as to accomplish these ends—“The 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 149 


counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of His 
heart to all generations” (Ps. 33:11). 

“Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and 
there is none else: I am God, and there is none like Me, 
declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient 
times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel 
shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure” (Is. 46:9, 10). 
Many other passages might be adduced to show that God 
has many purposes concerning this world and concerning 
man, and that all these purposes will most surely be realized. 
It is only when they are thus regarded that we can intelli- 
gently appreciate the prophecies of Scripture. In prophecy 
the Mighty God has condescended to take us into the secret 
chamber of His eternal counsels and make known to us what 
He has purposed to do in the future. The hundreds of 
prophecies which are found in the Old and New Testaments 
are not so much predictions of what will come to pass, as 
they are revelations to us of what God has purposed 
SHALL come to pass. Do we know from prophecy that 
this present age, like all preceding ones, is to end with a full 
demonstration of man’s failure; do we know that there is 
to be a universal turning away from the truth, a general 
apostasy ; do we know that the Anti-christ is to be manifested 
and that he will succeed in deceiving the whole world; do we 
know that Anti-christ’s career will be cut short and an end 
made of man’s miserable attempts to govern himself by the 
return of God’s Son to the earth to take the government 
upon His shoulder; do we know that for a thousand years 
the earth will be rid of Satan’s presence and that during this 
time the Lord Jesus will reign as Prince of Peace and King 
of Righteousness ; then it is all because these and a hundred 
other things are included among God’s eternal decrees, now 
made known to us in the sure Word of Prophecy, and be- 


150 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


cause it is infallibly certain that all God has purposed “must 
shortly come to pass” (Rev. 1:1). 

What then was the great purpose for which this world 
and the human race were created? The answer of Scripture 
is “The Lord hath made all things for Himself” (Pro. 
16:4). And again, “Thou hast created all things, and for 
Thy pleasure they are and were created” (Rev. 4:11). The 
great end of creation was the manifestation of God’s glory. 
The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament 
sheweth His handiwork, but it was by man originally made 
in His own image and likeness that God designed chiefly to 
manifest His glory. But how was the great Creator to be 
glorified by man? Before his creation God foresaw the fall 
of Adam and the consequent ruin of his race, therefore He 
could not have designed that man should glorify Him by 
continuing in a state of innocency. Accordingly, we are 
taught that Christ was “fore-ordained before the foundation 
of the world” to be the Saviour of fallen men. The re- 
demption of sinners by Christ was no mere after-thought of 
God : it was no expediency to meet an unlooked for calamity. 
No; it was a Divine pro-vision, and therefore when man fell 
he found mercy walking hand in hand with justice. 

From all eternity God designed that our world should be 
the stage on which He would display His manifold grace 
and wisdom in the redemption of lost sinners: “To the 
intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heaven- 
ly places might be known by the Church the manifold wis- 
dom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He pur- 
posed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:11). For the 
accomplishment of this glorious design God has governed 
the world from the beginning and will continue it to the end. 
It has been well said, ““We can never understand the provi- 
dence of God over our world, unless we regard it as a com- 
plicated machine having ten thousand parts, directed in all 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 151 


its Operations to one glorious end—the display of the mani- 
fold wisdom of God in the salvation of the Church,” i. e., 
the “called out” ones. Everything else down here is sub- 
ordinated to this central purpose. It was the apprehension 
of this basic truth that the apostle, moved by the Holy Spir- 
it, was led to write, “Wherefore I endure all things for the 
elect’s sake that they may also obtain the salvation which is 
in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2 10). What we 
would now contemplate is the operation of God’s sovereign- 
ty in the government of this world. 

In regard to the operation of God’s government over the 
material world little needs now be said. In previous chap- 
ters we have shown that inanimate matter and all irrational 
creatures are absolutely subject to their Creator’s pleasure. 
While we freely admit that the material world appears to be 
governed by laws that are stable and more or less uniform 
in their operations, yet Scripture, history, and observation 
compel us to recognise the fact that God suspends these 
laws and acts apart from them whenever it pleaseth Him to 
do so. In sending His blessings or judgments upon His crea- 
tures He may cause the sun itself to stand still and the 
stars in their courses to fight for His people (Judges 5:20); 
He may send or withhold “the early and the latter rains” ac- 
cording to the dictates of His own infinite wisdom ; He may 
smite with plague or bless with health: in short, being God, 
being absolute Sovereign, He is bound and tied by no laws 
of Nature but governs the material world as seemeth Him 
best. 

But what of God’s government of the human family? 
What does Scripture reveal in regard to the modus oper- 
andi of the operations of His governmental administration 
over mankind? To what extent and by what influences does 
God control the sons of men? We shall divide our answer 
to this question into two parts and consider first God’s 


152 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


method of dealing with the righteous, His elect, and then 
His method of dealing with the wicked. 


Gop’s Metruop oF DEALING WITH THE RIGHTEOUS: 


1 God exerts upon His own elect a quickening influence or 
power. 

By nature they are spiritually dead, dead in trespasses 
and sins, and their first need is spiritual life for “Except a 
man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” 
(John 3:3). In the new birth God brings us from death 
unto life (John 5:24). He imparts to us His own nature 
(2 Pet. 1:4). He delivers us from the power of darkness 
and translates us into the kingdom of His dear Son (Col. 
1:13). Now, manifestly we could not do this ourselves for 
we were “without strength” (Rom. 5:6), henée it is written, 
“we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 
2510). . 

In the new birth we are made partakers of the Divine 
nature: a principle, a “seed,” a life, is communicated to us 
which is “born of the Spirit” and therefore “is spirit,” is 
born ‘of the Holy Spirit and therefore is holy. Apart from 
this Divine and holy nature which is imparted to us at the 
new birth it is utterly impossible for any man to generate a 
spiritual impulse, form a spiritual concept, think a spiritual 
thought, understand spiritual things, still less engage in 
spiritual works. “Without holiness no man shall see the 
Lord,” but the natural man has no desire for holiness and 
the provision that God has made he does not want. Will 
then a man pray for, seek for, strive after, that which he 
dislikes? Surely not. If then a man does “follow after” 
that which by nature he cordially dislikes, if he does now 
love the One he. once hated, it is because a miraculous 
change has taken place within him; a power outside of him- 
self has operated upon him, a nature entirely different from 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 153 


his old one has been imparted to him, and hence it is written, 
“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation: 
old things are passed away, behold all things are become 
new” (2 Cor. 5:17). Such an one as we have just described 
has passed from death unto life, has been turned from dark- 
ness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God (Acts 
26:18). Inno other way can the great change be accounted 
for. 

The new birth is very, very much more than simply 
shedding a few tears due to a temporary remorse over sin. 
It is far more than changing our course of life, the leaving 
off of bad habits and the substituting of good ones. It is 
something different from the mere cherishing and practising 
of noble ideals. It goes infinitely deeper than coming for- 
ward to take some popular evangelist by the hand, signing a 
pledge card, or “joining the church.” The new birth is no 
mere turning over a new leaf, but is the inception and 
_ Teception of a new life. It is no mere reformation but a 
complete transformation. In short, the new birth is a mir- 
acle, the result of the supernatural Operation of God. It is 
radical, revolutionary, lasting. , 

Here then is the first thing, in time, which God does in 
His own elect. He lays hold of those who are spiritually 
dead and quickens them into newness of life. He takes up 
one who was shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin and 
conforms him to the image of His Son. He seizes a cap- 
tive of the Devil and makes him a member of the house- 
hold of faith. He picks up a beggar and makes him joint- 
heir with Christ. He comes to one who is full of enmity 
against Him and gives him a new heart that is full of love 
for Him. He stoops to one who by nature is a rebel and 
works in him both to will and to do of His good pleasure. 
By His irresistible power He transforms a sinner into a 


154 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


saint, an enemy into a friend, a child of the Devil into a 
child of God. Surely then we are moved to say, 


“When all Thy mercies O my God 
My wondering soul surveys, 
Transported with the view I’m lost 
In wonder, love and praise.” 


2 God exerts upon His own elect an energising influence 
or power. 


The apostle prayed to God for the Ephesian saints that 
the eyes of their understanding might be enlightened in 
order that, among other things, they might know “what is 
the exceeding greatness of His power to usward who be- 
lieve’ (Eph. 1:18), and that they might be “strengthened 
with might by His Spirit in the inner man” (3:16). It is 
thus that the children of God are enabled to fight the good 
fight of faith and battle with the adverse forces which con- 
stantly war against them. In themselves they have no 
strength: they are but “sheep” and sheep are one of the most 
defenceless animals there is; but the promise is sure—“He 
giveth power to the faint, and to them that have no might 
He increaseth strength” (Is. 40:29). 

It is this energising power that God exerts upon and with- 
in the righteous which enables them to serve Him ac- 
ceptably. Said the prophet of old, “But truly I am full of 
power by the Spirit of the Lord” (Micah 3:8). And said 
our Lord to His apostles, “Ye shall receive power after that 
the Holy Spirit is come upon you” (Acts 1:8), and thus it 
proved, for of these same men we read subsequently, “And 
with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrec- 
tion of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all” 
(Acts 4:33). So it was, too, with the apostle Paul, “And 
my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of 
man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 155 


power” (1 Cor. 2:4). But the scope of this power is not 
confined to service for we read in 2 Pet. 1 :3, “According as 
His Divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain 
unto life and godliness, thro’ the knowledge of Him that 
hath called us to glory and virtue.’ Hence it is that the 
various graces of the Christian character “love, joy, peace, 
long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, tem- 
perance” are ascribed directly to God Himself, being denom- 
inated “the fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. Cea 

3 God exerts upon His own elect a directing influence or 


power. 

Of old He led His people across the wilderness and di- 
rected their steps by a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of 
fire by night, and today He still directs His saints, though 
now from within rather than from without. “For this God 
ts our God for ever and ever: He will be our Guide even 
unto death” (Ps. 48:14), but He “guides” us by working in 
us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. That He 
does so guide us is clear from the words of the apostle in 
Eph. 2:10—‘For we are His workmanship, created in 
Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before or- 
dained that we should walk in them”. Thus all ground for 
boasting is removed, and God gets all the glory, for with 
- the prophet we have to say, “Lord, Thou wilt ordain peace 
for us: for Thou also hast wrought all our works in us” 
(Is. 26:12). How true then that “A man’s heart deviseth 
his way: but the Lord directeth his steps’ (Pro. 16:9)! 

4 God exerts upon His own elect a preserving influence 
or power. 

Many are the scriptures which set forth this blessed truth. 
“He preserveth the souls of His saints ; He delivereth them 
out of the hand of the wicked” (Ps. 97:10). “For the Lord 
loveth judgment, and forsaketh not His saints; they are 


156 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut 
off” (Ps. 37:28). “The Lord preserveth all them that love 
Him: but all the wicked will He destroy” (Ps. 145:20). It 
is needless to multiply texts or to raise an argument at this 
point respecting the believer’s responsibility and faithfulness 
—we can no more “persevere” without God preserving us 
than we can breathe when God ceases to give us breath; we 
are “kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation 
ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:5). It re- 
mains for us now to consider. 


Gop’s MEetTHop oF DEALING WITH THE WICKED: 


In contemplating God’s governmental dealings with the 
non-elect we find that He exerts upon them a fourfold in- 
fluence cr power. We adopt the clear-cut divisions sug- 
gested by Dr. Rice: 


1 God exerts upon the wicked a restraining influence by 
which they are prevented from doing what they are natu- 
rally inclined to do. 


A striking example of this is seen in Abimelech King of 
Gerar. Abraham came down to Gerar and fearful lest he 
might be slain on account of his wife he instructed her to 
pose as his sister. Regarding her as an unmarried woman 
Abimelech sent and took Sarah unto himself, and then we 
learn how God put forth His power to protect her honor— 
“And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou 
didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for J also withheld 
thee from sinning against Me: therefore suffered I thee not 
to touch her’ (Gen. 20:6). Had not God interposed Abime- 
lech would have grievously wronged Sarah, but the Lord 
restrained him and allowed him not to carry out the inten- 
tions of his heart. 

A similar instance is found in connection with Joseph and 
his brethren’s treatment of him. Owing to Jacob’s parti- 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 157 


ality for Joseph, his brethren “hated him,” and when they 
thought they had him in their power “they conspired against 
him to slay him” (Gen. 37:18). But God did not allow them 
to carry out their evil designs. First He moved Reuben 
to deliver him out of their hands, and next he caused Judah 
to suggest that Joseph should be sold to the passing Ishmael- 
ites who carried him down into Egypt. That it was God 
who thus restrained them is clear from the words of Joseph 
himself when some years later he made known himself to his 
brethren: said he, “So now it was not you that sent me 
hither, but God” (Gen. 45:8)! 

The restraining influence which God exerts upon the 
wicked was strikingly exemplified in the person of Balaam 
the prophet hired by Balak to curse the Israelites. One 
cannot read the inspired narrative without discovering that, 
left to himself, Balaam had readily and certainly accepted 
the offer of Balak. How evidently God restrained the im- 
pulses of his heart is seen from his own acknowledgment— 
“How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed? or how 
shall I defy, whom the Lord hath not defied? Behold I have 
received commandment to bless: and He hath blessed ; and I 
cannot reverse it” (Num. 23:8, 20). 

Not only does God exert a restraining influence upon 
wicked individuals but He does so upon whole peoples as 
well. A remarkable illustration of this is found in Pox 34: 
24—"‘For I will-cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge 
thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when 
thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice 
in the year.” Three times every male Israelite, at the 
command of God, left his home and inheritance and jour- 
neyed to Jerusalem to keep the Feasts of the Lord, and in 
the above scripture we learn that He promised them that 
while they were at Jerusalem He would guard their unpro- 


158 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


tected homes by restraining the covetous designs and desires 

of their heathen neighbors. 

2 God exerts upon the wicked a softening influence dis- 
posing them contrary to their natural inclinations to do 
that which will promote His cause. 


Above we referred to Joseph’s history as an illustration 
of God exerting a restraining influence upon the wicked, let 
us note now his experiences in Egypt as exemplifying our 
assertion that God also exerts a softening influence upon the 
unrighteous. We are told that while he was in the house 
of Potiphar “The Lord was with Joseph, and his master 
saw the Lord was with him,” and in consequence, “Joseph 
found favor in his sight and he made him over-seer over 
his house” (Gen. 39:3, 4). Later, when Joseph was unjust- 
ly cast into prison, we are told, “But the Lord was with 
Joseph, and shewed him mercy, and gave him favor in the 
sight of the keeper of the prison” (Gen. 39:21), and in con- 
sequence the prison-keeper shewed him much kindness and 
honor. Finally, after his release from prison, we learn 
from Acts 7:10 that the Lord “gave him favor and wisdom 
in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him 
governor over Egypt and all his house.” 

An equally striking evidence of God’s power to melt the 
hearts of His enemies was seen in Pharaoh’s daughter’s 
treatment of the infant Moses. The incident is well known. 
Pharaoh had issued an edict commanding the destruction of 
every male child of the Israelites. A certain Levite had a 
son born to him who for three months was kept hidden by 
his mother. No longer able to conceal the infant Moses, she 
placed him in an ark of bulrushes, and laid him by the 
river’s brink. The ark was discovered by none less than the 
king’s daughter who had come down to the river to bathe, 
but instead of heeding her father’s wicked decree and cast- 
ing the child into the river, we are told that “she had com- 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 159 


passion on him” (Ex. 2:6)! Accordingly, the young life 
was spared and later Moses became the adopted son of this 
princess! 

God has access to the hearts of all men and He softens or 
hardens them according to His sovereign purpose. The pro- 
fane Esau swore vengeance upon his brother for the decep- 
tion which he had practiced upon his father, yet when next 
he met Jacob instead of slaying him we are told that Esau 
“fell on his neck and kissed him” (Gen. 32:4)! Ahab, the 
weak and wicked consort of Jezebel, was highly enraged 
against Elijah the prophet at whose word the heavens had 
been shut up for three years and a half: so angry was he 
against the one whom he regarded as his enemy that we are 
told he searched for him in every nation and kingdom and 
when he could not be found “he took an oath” (1 Kings 
18:10). Yet, when they met, instead of killing the prophet 
Ahab meekly obeyed Elijah’s behest and “sent unto all the 
children of Israel and gathered the prophets together unto 
Mount Carmel” (vs. 20). Again; Esther the poor Jewess is 
about to enter the presence chamber of the august Medo- 
Persian monarch which, said she, “is not according to the 
law” (Est. 4:16). She went in expecting to “perish,” but 
we are told “She obtained favor in his sight and the king 
held out to Esther the golden scepter” (5 2). Yet again; the 
boy Daniel is a captive in a foreign court. The king “appoint- 
ed” a daily provision of meat and drink for Daniel and his 
fellows. But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would 
not defile himself with the allotted portion and accordingly 
made known his purpose to his master, the prince of the 
eunuchs. What happened? His master was a heathen, and 
“feared” the king. Did he turn then upon Daniel and angrily 
demand that his orders be promptly carried out? No; for 
we read, “Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender 
love with the prince of the eunuchs” (Dan. 1 79)! 


160 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


“The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers 
of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will” (Pro. 21:1). 
A remarkable illustration of this is seen in Cyrus the heathen 
king of Persia. God’s people were in captivity ; but the pre- 
dicted end of their captivity was almost reached. Meanwhile 
the Temple at Jerusalem lay in ruins, and, as we have said, 
the Jews were in bondage in a distant land. What hope was 
there then that the Lord’s house would be re-built? Mark 
now what God did, ‘Now in the first year of Cyrus king of 
Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah 
might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king 
of Persia, that He made a proclamation throughout all his 
kingdom, and put it in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king 
of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the 
kingdoms of the earth; and He hath charged me to build Him 
a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah” (Ezra 1:1, 2). Cy- 
rus, be it remembered, was a pagan, and as secular history 
bears witness, a very wicked man, yet the Lord moved him 
to issue this edict that His Word through Jeremiah seventy 
years before might be fulfilled. A similar and further illustra- 
tion is found in Ezra 7:27 where we find Ezra returning 
thanks for what God had caused King Artaxerxes to do in 
completing and beautifying the house which Cyrus had com- 
manded to be erected—“Blessed be the Lord God of our fa- 
thers which hath put such a thing as this in the king's heart, 
to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem” 
Giizrae7227,). 

3 God exerts upon the wicked a directing influence so that 
good is made to result from their intended evil. 


Once more we revert to the history of Joseph as a case in 
point. In selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites his brethren were 
actuated by cruel and heartless motives. Their object was to 
make away with him, and the passing of these travelling 
traders furnished an easy way out for them. To them the 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 161 


act was nothing more than the enslaving of a noble youth for 
the sake of gain. But now observe how God was secretly 
working and over-ruling their wicked actions. Providence 
so ordered it that these Ishmaelites passed by just in time to 
prevent Joseph being murdered, for his brethren had already 
taken counsel together to put him to death. Further ; these 
Ishmaelites were journeying to Egypt which was the very 
country to which God had purposed to send Joseph and He 
ordained they should purchase Joseph just when they did. 
That the hand of God was in this incident, that it was some- 
thing more than a fortunate co-incidence, is clear from the 
words of Joseph to his brethren at a later date, ““God sent 
me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to 
save your lives by a greater deliverance” (Gen. 45 eda 

Another equally striking illustration of God directing the 
wicked is found in Isaiah 10 :5-7—“O Assyrian, the rod of 
Mine anger, and the staff in their hand is Mine indignation. [ 
will send him against a hypocritical nation, and against the 
people of My wrath will I give him a charge, to take the 
spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the 
mire of the streets. Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth 
his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off 
nations not a few.” Assyria’s king had determined to be a 
world-conqueror, to “cut off nations not a few.” But God 
directed and controlled his military lust and ambition and 
caused -him to confine his attention to the conquering of the 
insignificant nation of Israel. Such a task was not in the 
proud king’s heart—“‘he meant it not so”—but God gave him 
this charge and he could do nothing but fulfill it. 

The supreme example of the controlling, directing influ- 
ence, which God exerts upon the wicked is the Cross of 
Christ with all its attending circumstances. If ever the su- 
perintending providence of God was witnessed it was there. 
From all eternity God had predestined every detail of that 


162 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


event of all events. Nothing was left to chance or the caprice 
of man. God had decreed when and where and how His 
blessed Son was to die. Much of what He had purposed 
concerning the Crucifixion had been made known through the 
Old Testament prophets, and in the accurate and literal ful- 
fillment of these prophecies we have clear proof, full demon- 
stration, of the controlling and directing influence which 
God exerts upon the wicked. Not a thing occurred except as 
God has ordained, and all that He had ordained took place 
exactly as He purposed. Had it been decreed (and made 
known in Scripture) that the Saviour should be betrayed by 
one of His own disciples—by His ‘‘familiar friend’”—see Ps. 
41:9 and compare Matt. 26:50—then the apostle Judas is 
the one who sold Him. Had it been decreed that the betrayer 
should receive for his awful perfidy thirty pieces of silver, 
then are the chief priests moved to offer him this very sum. 
Had it been decreed that this betrayal sum should be put to 
a particular use, namely, purchase the potter’s field, then the 
hand of God directs Judas to return the money to the chief 
priests and so guided their “counsel” (Matt. 27:7) that they 
did this very thing. Had it been decreed that there should be 
those who bore “false witness” against our Lord (Ps. 35:11), 
then accordingly such were raised up. Had it been decreed 
that the Lord of glory should be “spat upon and scourged” 
(Is. 50:6), then there were not found wanting those who 
were vile enough to do so. Had it been decreed that the 
Saviour should be ‘numbered with the trangressors,” then 
unknown to himself, Pilate, directed by God, gave orders for 
His crucifixion along with two thieves. Had it been decreed 
that vinegar and gall should be given Him to drink while He 
hung upon the Cross, then this decree of God was executed 
to the very letter. Had it been decreed that the heartless 
soldiers should gamble for His garments, then sure enough 
they did this very thing. Had it been decreed that not a 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 163 


bone of Him should be broken (Ps. 34 :20), then the con- 
trolling hand of God which suffered the Roman soldier to 
break the legs of the thieves, prevented him from doing the 
same with our Lord. Ah! there were not enough soldiers in 
all the Roman legions, there were not sufficient demons in all 
the hierarchies of Satan, to break one bone in the body of 
Christ. And why? Because the Almighty Sovereign had de- 
creed that not a bone should be broken. Do we need to ex- 
tend this paragraph any farther? Does not the accurate 
and literal fulfillment of all that Scripture had predicted in 
connection with the Crucifixion demonstrate beyond all con- 
troversy that an Almighty power was directing and superin- 
tending everything that was done on that Day of days? 

4 God also hardens the hearts of wicked men and blinds 

their minds. 

“God hardens men’s hearts? God blinds men’s minds? Yes, 
so Scripture represents Him. In developing this theme of 
the Sovereignty of God in Operation we recognise that we 
have now reached its most solemn aspect of all, and that here 
especially, we need to keep very close indeed to the words of 
Holy Writ. God forbid that we should go one fraction fur- 
ther than His Word goes; but may He give us grace to go as 
far as His Word goes. It is true that secret things belong 
unto the Lord, but it is also true that those things which are 
revealed in Scripture belong unto us and to our children. 

“He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal subtly 
with His servants” (Ps. 105:25). The reference here is to 
the sojourn of the descendants of Jacob in the land of Egypt 
when, after the death of the Pharaoh who had welcomed the 
old patriarch and his family, there “arose up a new king who 
knew not Joseph ;” and in his days the children of Israel had 
“increased greatly” so that they outnumbered the Egyptians, 
Then it was that God “turned their heart to hate His people.” 

The consequence of the Egyptians’ “hatred” is well 


164 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


known: they brought them into cruel bondage and placed 
them under merciless taskmasters, until their lot became un- 
endurable. Helpless and wretched the Israelites cried unto 
Jehovah, and in response He appointed Moses to be their de- 
liverer. God revealed Himself unto His chosen servant, 
gave him a number of miraculous signs which he was to ex- 
hibit at the Egyptian court, and then bade him go to Pharaoh 
and demand that the Israelites should be allowed to go a 
three days’ journey into the wilderness that they might wor- 
ship the Lord. But before Moses started out on his journey 
God warned him concerning Pharaoh “J will harden lis heart 
that he shall not let the people go” (Ex. 4:21). If it be asked, 
Why did God harden Pharaoh’s heart ? the answer furnished 
by Scripture itself is, In order that God might show forth His 
power in him (Rom. 9:17); in other words, it was so that 
the Lord might demonstrate that it was just as easy for Him 
to overthrow this haughty and powerful monarch as it was 
for Him to crush a worm. If it should be pressed further, 
Why did God select such a method of displaying His power? 
then the answer must be, that being Sovereign God reserves 
to Himself the right to act as He pleases. 

Not only are we told that God hardened the heart of Pha- 
raoh so that he would not let the Israelites go, but after God 
had plagued his land so severely that he reluctantly gave a 
qualified permission, and after that the first-born of all the 
Egyptians had been slain and Israel had actually left the land 
of bondage, God told Moses, “And I, behold, “Z will harden 
the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and 
I will get Me honor upon Pharaoh, upon his chariots, and 
upon his horsemen. And the Egyptians shall know that I 
am the Lord, when I have gotten Me honor upon Pharaoh, 
upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen” (Ex. 14:17, 18). 

The same thing happened subsequently in connection 
with Sihon king of Heshbon through whose territory Israel 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 165 


had to pass on their way to the Promised Land. When re- 
viewing their history, Moses teld the people, “But Sihon king 
of Heshon would not let us pass by him: for the Lord thy 
God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that 
He might deliver him into thy hand” (Deut. 2:30) ! 

So it was also after that Israel had entered Canaan. We 
read, “There was not a city that made peace with the chil- 
dren of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: 
all other they took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden 
their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, 
that He might destroy them utterly, and that they might have 
no favor, but that He might destroy them, as the Lord com- 
manded Moses” (Josh. 11:19, 20). From other scriptures 
we learn why God purposed to “destroy utterly” the Ca- 
naanites—it was because of their awful wickedness and cor- 
ruption. 

Nor is the revelation of this solemn truth confined to the 
Old Testament. In John 12:37-40 we read, “But though He 
had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not 
on Him: that (in order that) the saying of Isaiah the proph- 
et might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath be- 
lieved our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord 
been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because 
that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hard- 
ened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, 
nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and 
I should heal them.” It needs to be carefully noted here that 
these whose eyes God “blinded” and whose heart He 
“hardened were men who had deliberately scorned the Light 
and rejected the testimony of God’s own Son. 

Similarly we read in 2 Thess. 2:11, 12, “And for this cause 
God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe 
a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the 
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” The fulfillment 


166 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


of this scripture is yet future. What God did unto the Jews 
of old He is yet going to do unto Christendom. Just as the 
Jews of Christ’s day despised His testimony, and in conse- 
quence, were “blinded,” so a guilty Christendom which has 
rejected the Truth shall yet have sent them from God a 
“strong delusion” that they may believe a lie. 

Is God really governing the world? Is He exercising rule 
over the human family? What is the modus operandi of His 
governmental administration over mankind? To what ex- 
tent and by what means does He control the sons of men? 
How does God exercise an influence upon the wicked, seeing 
their hearts are at enmity against Him? These are some of 
the questions we have sought to answer from Scripture in the 
previous sections of this chapter. Upon His own elect God 
exerts a quickening, an energising, a directing, and a pre- 
serving power. Upon the wicked God exerts a restraining, 
softening, directing, and hardening and blinding power ac- 
cording to the dictates of His own infinite wisdom and unto 
the outworking of His own eternal purpose. God's decrees 
are being executed. What He has ordained is being accom- 
plished. Man’s wickedness is bounded. The limits of evil- 
doing and of evil-doers has been Divinely defined and cannot 
be exceeded. Though many are in ignorance of it, all men, 
good and bad, are under the jurisdiction of and are absolute- 
ly subject to the administration of the Supreme Sovereign.— 
“Aljeluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth” (Rev. 
19 :6)—reigneth over all. 


GHAPTER SEVEN, 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND THE HUMAN WILL. 


“It is God which worketh in you 
both to will and to do of His good pleasure.” 
Phils 13% 


Vil. GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND THE HUMAN WILL. 


mp GUAT is the human Will? Is it a self-determining 

((; [ agent, or is it, in turn, determined by something else? 
ww 3 Is it sovereign or servant? Is the will superior to 
every other faculty of our being so that it governs them, or is 
it moved by their impulses and subject to their pleasure? 
Does the will rule the mind, or does the mind control the 
will? Is the will free to do as it pleases or is it under the 
necessity of rendering obedience to something outside of it- 
self? “Does the will stand apart from the other great facul- 
ties or powers of the soul, a man within a man, who can re- 
verse the man and fly against the man and split him into seg- 
ments, as a glass snake breaks in pieces? Or, is the will con- 
nected with the other faculties, as the tail of the serpent is 
with his body, and that again with his head, so that where the 
head goes, the whole creature goes, and, as a man thinketh in 
his heart, so is he? First thought, then heart (desire or aver- 
sion), and then act. Is it this way, the dog wags the tail? 
Or, is it the will, the tail, wags the dog? Is the will the first 
and chief thing in the man, or is it the last thing—to be kept 
subordinate, and in its place beneath the other faculties? 
and, is the true philosophy of moral action and its process that 
of Gen. 3:6: “And when the woman saw that the tree was 
good for food” (sense-perception, intelligence), “and a tree 
to be desired” (affections), “she took and ate thereof” (the 
will).” (G. S. Bishop). These are questions of more than 
academical interest. They are of practical importance. 
We believe that we do not go too far when we affirm that the 


170 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


answer returned to these questions is a fundamental test of 
doctrinal soundness.” 


1. THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN WILL. 


What is the Will? We answer, the will is the faculty of 
choice, the immediate cause of all action. Choice necessa- 
rily implies the refusal of one thing and the acceptance of 
another. The positive and the negative must both be present 
to the mind before there can be any choice. In every act of 
the will there is a preference—the desiring of one thing rath- 
er than another. Where there is no preference, but complete 
indifference, there is no volition. To will is to choose, and to 
choose is to decide between two or more alternatives. But 
there is something which influences the choice; something 
which determines the decision. Hence the will cannot be 
sovereign because it is the servant of that something. The 
will cannot be both sovereign and servant. It cannot be both 
cause and effect. The will is not causative, because, as we 
have said, something causes it to choose, therefore that some- 
thing must be the causative agent. Choice itself is affected 
by certain considerations, is determined by various influences 
brought to bear upon the individual himself, hence, volition 
is the effect of these considerations and influences, and if the 
effect, it must be their servant; and if the will is their servant 
then it is not sovereign, and if the will is not sovereign, we 
certainly cannot predicate absolute “freedom” of it. Acts 
of the will cannot come to pass of themselves—to say they 
can is to postulate an uncaused effect. Ex nihilo nihil fit— 
nothing cannot produce something. 

*Since writing the above we have read an article by the late J. N. 
Darby entitled, “Man’s so-called freewill,” that opens with these 
words: “This re-appearance of the doctrine of freewill serves to 
support that of the pretension of the natural man to be not irremedi- 
ably fallen, for this is what such doctrine tends to. All who have 


never been deeply convicted of sin, all persons in whom this convic- 
tion is based on gross external sins, believe more or less in freewill.” 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD AND THE HUMAN WILL 171 


In all ages, however, there have been those who contended 
for the absolute freedom or sovereignty of the human will. 
Men will argue that the will possesses a self-determining 
power. They say, for example, I can turn my eyes up or 
down, the mind is quite indifferent which I do, the will must 
decide. But this is a contradiction in terms. This case sup- 
poses that I choose one thing in preference to another while 
I am in a state of complete indifference. Manifestly, both 
cannot be true. But it may be replied, the mind was quite 
indifferent until it came to have a preference. Exactly ; and 
at that time the will was quiescent, too. But the moment in- 
difference vanished, choice was made, and the fact that indif- 
ference gave place to preference overthrows the argument 
that the will is capable of choosing between two equal things. 
As we have said, choice implies the acceptance of one alter- 
native and the rejection of the other or others. 

That which determines the will is that which causes it to 
choose. If the will is determined, then there must be a de- 
terminer. What is it that determines the will? We reply, 
the strongest motive power which is brought to bear upon 
it. What this motive power is varies in different cases. With 
one it may be the logic of reason, with another the voice of 
conscience, with another the impulse of the emotions, with 
another the whisper of the Tempter, with another the power 
of the Holy Spirit ; whichever of these presents the strongest 
motive power and exerts the greatest influence upon the indi- 
vidual himself is that which impels the will to act. In other 
words, the action of the will is determined by that condition 
of mind (which in turn is influenced by the world, the flesh, 
and the Devil, as well as by God) which has the greatest de- 
gree of tendency to excite volition. To illustrate what we 
have just said let us analyze a simple example— 

On a certain Lord’s day afternoon a friend of ours was 
suffering from a severe headache. He was anxious to visit 


172 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


the sick, but feared that if he did so his own condition 
would grow worse, and as the consequence be unable to 
attend the preaching of the Gospel that evening. Two alter- 
natives confronted him: to visit the sick that afternoon and 
risk being sick himself, or, to take a rest that afternoon (and 
visit the sick the next day) and probably arise refreshed and 
fit for the evening service. Now what was it that decided our 
friend in choosing between these two alternatives? The will? 
Not at all. True, that in the end, the will made a choice, but 
the will itself was moved to make the choice. In the above 
case certain considerations presented strong motives for 
selecting either alternative ; these motives were balanced the 
one against the other by the individual himself, i. e., his 
heart and mind, and the one alternative being supported by 
stronger motives than the other, decision was formed ac- 
cordingly, and then the will acted. On the one side, our 
friend felt impelled by a sense of duty to visit the sick; he 
was moved with compassion to do so, and thus a strong mo- 
tive was presented to his mind or judgment. On the other 
hand, his judgment reminded him that he was feeling far 
from well himself, that he badly needed a rest, that if he 
visited the sick his own condition would probably be made 
worse, and in such case he would be prevented from attend- 
ing the preaching of the Gospel that night; furthermore he 
knew that on the morrow, the Lord willing, he could visit 
the sick, and this being so he concluded he ought to rest that 
afternoon. Here then were two sets of alternatives pre- 
sented to our Christian brother: on the one side was a sense 
of duty plus his own sympathy, on the other side was a sense 
of his own need plus a real concern for God’s glory, for he 
felt that he ought to attend the preaching of the Gospel that 
night. The latter prevailed. Spiritual considerations out- 
weighed his sense of duty. Having formed his decision the 
will acted accordingly, and he retired to rest. An analysis 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD AND THE HUMAN WILL 173 


of the above case shows that the mind or reasoning faculty 
was directed by spiritual considerations, and the mind regu- 
lated and controlled the will. FElence we say that if the will 
is controlled it is neither sovereign nor free, but is the serv- 
ant of the mind. 

It is only as we see the real nature of freedom and mark 
that the will is subject to the motives brought to bear upon 
it that we are able to discern there is no conflict between two 
statements of Holy Writ which concern our blessed Lord. 
In Matt. 4:1 we read, “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit 
into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil”, but in Mark 
I:12, 13 we are told, “And immediately the Spirit driveth 
Him into the wilderness. And He was there in the wilder- 
ness forty days, tempted of Satan”. It is utterly impossible to 
harmonize these two statements by the Arminian conception 
of the will. But really there is no difficulty. That Christ was 
“driven” implies it was by a forcible motive or powerful im- 
pulse, such as was not to be resisted or refused; that He 
was “led” denotes His freedom in going. Putting the two 
together we learn, that He was driven with a voluntary con- 
descension thereto. So, there is the liberty of man’s will 
and the victorious efficacy of God’s grace united together: a 
sinner may be “drawn” and yet “come” to Christ—the 
“drawing” presenting to him the irresistible motive, the 
“coming” signifying the response of his will—as Christ 
was “driven” and “led” by the Spirit into the wilderness. 

Human philosophy insists that it is the will which governs 
the man, but the Word of God teaches that it is the heart 
which is the dominating center of our being. Many scrip- 
tures might be quoted in substantiation of this. “Keep thy 
heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” 
(Prov. 4:23). “For from within, out of the heart of men, 
proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,” etc. 
(Mark 7:21). Here our Lord traces these sinful acts back 


174 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


to their source, and declares that their fountain is the “heart’’ 
and not the will! Again; “This people draweth nigh unto 
Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me” (Matt. 
15:8). If further proof were required we might call atten- 
tion to the fact that the word “heart” is found in the Bible 
more than three times oftener than is the word “will,” even 
though nearly half of the references to the latter refer to 
God’s will. 

When we call attention to the fact that it is the heart and 
not the will which governs the man, we are not merely striv- 
ing about words but insisting on a distinction that is of vital 
importance. Here is an individual before whom two alterna- 
tives are placed; which will he choose? We answer, the one 
which is most agreeable to himself, i.e., his “heart’’—the in- 
nermost core of his being. Before the sinner is set a life of 
virtue and piety, and a life of sinful indulgence; which will 
he follow? The latter. Why? Because this is his choice. 
But does that prove the will is sovereign? Not at all. Go 
back from effect to cause. Why does the sinner choose a life 
of sinful indulgence? Because he prefers it—and he does 
prefer it, all arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, 
though of course he does not enjoy the effects of such a 
course. And why does he prefer it? Because his heart is 
sinful. The same alternatives, in like manner, confront the 
Christian, and he chooses and strives after a life of piety and 
virtue. Why? Because God has given him a new heart or na- 
ture. Hence we say it is not the will which makes the sinner 
impervious to all appeals to “forsake his way,” but his cor- 
rupt and evil heart. He will not come to Christ because he 
does not want to, and he does not want to because his heart 
hates Him and loves sin. 

In defining the will we have said above, that “the will is 
the faculty of choice, the immediate cause of all action.” We 
say the immediate cause, for the will is not the primary cause 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD AND THE HUMAN WILL 175 


of any action any more than the hand is. Just as the hand 
is controlled by the muscles and nerves of the arm, and the 
arm by the brain, so the will is the servant of the mind and 
the mind, in turn, is affected by various influences and mo- 
tives which are brought to bear upon it. But, it may be 
asked, Does not Scripture make its appeal to man’s will? Is 
it not written, “And whosoever will, let him take the water of 
life freely” (Rev. 22:17) ? And did not our Lord say, “ye will 
not come to Me that ye might have life” (John 5:40)? We 
answer ; the appeal of Scripture is not always made to man’s 
“will”; other of his faculties are also addressed. For ex- 
ample: “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” “Hear and 
your soul shall live.” “Look unto Me and be ye saved.” “Be- 
heve on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” 
“Come now and let us reason together,” etc., etc. 


2 THE BONDAGE oF THE HUMAN WILL. 


In any treatise that proposes to deal with the human will, 
its nature and functions, respect should be had to the will in 
three different men, namely, unfallen Adam, the sinner, and 
the Lord Jesus Christ. In unfallen Adam the will was free, 
free in both directions, free toward good and free toward 
evil. Adam was created in a state of imnocency, but not in a 
state of holiness as is so often assumed and asserted. Adam’s 
will was therefore in a condition of moral equipoise: that is 
to say, in Adam there was no constraining bias in him toward 
either good or evil, and as such Adam differed radically from 
all his descendants, as well as from “the Man Christ hestis3: 
But with the sinner it is far otherwise. The sinner is born 
with a will that is not in a condition of moral equipoise, be- 
cause in him there is a heart that is “deceitful above all things 
and desperately wicked,” and this gives him a bias toward 
evil. So, too, with the Lord Jesus it was far otherwise: He 
also differed radically from unfallen Adam. The Lord Jesus 


176 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


Christ could not sin because He was “the Holy One of God.” 
Before He was born into this world it was said to Mary, 
“The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the 
Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that Holy 
Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of 
God” (Luke 1:35). Speaking reverently then, we say, that 
the will of the Son of Man was not in a condition of moral 
equipoise, that is, capable of turning toward either good or 
evil. The will of the Lord Jesus was biased toward that 
which is good because, side by side with His sinless, holy, per- 
fect humanity, was His eternal Deity. Now in contradistinc- 
tion from the will of the Lord Jesus which was biased 
toward good, and Adam’s will which, before his fall, was in 
a condition of moral equipoise—capable of turning toward 
either good or evil—the sinner’s will is biased toward evil 
and therefore is free in one directon only, namely, in the di- 
rection of evil. The sinner’s will is enslaved because it is in 
_ bondage to and is the servant of a depraved heart. 

In what does the sinner’s freedom consist? This question 
is naturally suggested by what we have just said above. The 
sinner is ‘free’ in the sense of being unforced from without. 
God never forces the sinner to sin. But the sinner is not 
free to do either good or evil because an evil heart within is 
ever inclining him toward sin. Let us illustrate what we have 
in mind. I hold in my hand a book. I release it; what hap- 
pens? It falls. In which direction? Downwards; always 
downwards. Why ? Because, answering the law of gravity, its 
own weight sinks it. Suppose I desire that book to occupy a 
position three feet higher; then what? I must lift it; a 
power outside of that book must raise it. Such is the rela- 
tionship which fallen man sustains toward God. Whilst 
Divine power upholds him, he is preserved from plunging 
still deeper into sin; let that power be withdrawn, and he 
falls—his own weight (of sin) drags him down. God does 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD AND THE HUMAN WILL 177 


not push him down anymore than I did that book. Let all 
Divine restraint be removed and every man is capable of be- 
coming, would become, a Cain, a Pharaoh, a Judas. How 
then is the sinner to move heavenwards? By an act of his 
own will? Not so. A power outside of himself must grasp 
hold of him and lift him every inch of the way. The sinner 
is free, but free in one direction only—free to fall, free to 
sin. As the Word expresses it: “For when ye were the serv- 
ants of sin, ye were free from righteousness” (Rom. 6:20). 
The sinner is free to do as he pleases, always as he pleases 
(except as he is restrained by God), but his pleasure is to 
sin. 

In the opening paragraph of this chapter we insisted that 
a proper conception of the nature and function of the will 
is of practical importance, nay, that it constitutes a funda- 
mental test of theological orthodoxy or doctrinal sound- 
ness. We wish to amplify this statement and attempt to 
demonstrate its accuracy. The freedom or bondage of the 
will was the dividing line between Augustinianism and Pela- 
gianism, and in more recent times between Calvinism and 
Arminianism. Reduced to simple terms, this means, that 
the difference involved was the affirmation or denial of the 
total depravity of man. In taking the affirmative we shall 
now consider, 


3 THE IMpoTENCY OF THE HuMAN WILL. 

Does it lie within the province of man’s will to accept or 
reject the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour? Granted that the 
Gospel is preached to the sinner, that the Holy Spirit con- 
victs him of his lost condition, does it, in the final analysis, lie 
within the power of his own will to resist or to yield himself 
up to God? The answer to this question defines our concep- 
tion of human depravity. That man is a fallen creature all 
professing Christians will allow, but what many of them 


178 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


mean by “fallen” is often difficult to determine. The general 
impression seems to be that man is now mortal, that he is no 
longer in the condition in which he left the hands of his Crea- 
tor, that he is liable to disease, that he inherits evil tenden- 
cies; but, that if he employs his powers to the best of his 
ability, somehow he will be happy at last. O, how far short 
of the sad truth! Infirmities, sickness, even corporeal death, 
are but trifles in comparison with the moral and spiritual 
effects of the Fall! It is only by consulting the Holy Scrip- 
tures that we are able to obtain some conception of the ex- 
tent of that terrible calamity. 

When we say that man is totally depraved, we mean that 
the entrance of sin into the human constitution has affected 
every part and faculty of man’s being. Total depravity 
means that man is, in spirit and soul and body, the slave of 
sin and the captive of the Devil—walking “according to the 
prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in 
the children of disobedience” (Eph. 2:2). This statement 
ought not to need arguing: it is a common fact of human ex- 
perience. Man is unable to realize his own aspirations and 
materialize his own ideals. He cannot do the things that he 
would. There is a moral inability which paralyzes him. 
This is proof positive that he is no free man, but instead, the 
slave of sin and Satan. ‘Ye are of your father the Devil, and 
the lusts (desires) of your father ye will do” (John 8:44). 
Sin is more than an act or a series of acts; it is a state or 
condition: it is that which lies behind and produces the acts. 
Sin has penetrated and permeated the whole of man’s make- 
up. It has blinded the understanding, corrupted the heart, 
and alienated the mind from God. And the will has not 
escaped. The will is under the dominion of sin and Satan. 
Therefore, the will is not free. In short, the affections love 
as they do and the will chooses as it does because of the state 
of the heart, and because the heart is deceitful above all 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD AND THE HUMAN WILL 179 


things and desperately wicked “There is none that seeketh 
after God” (Rom. 3:11). 

We repeat our question; Does it lie within the power of 
the sinner’s will to yield himself up to God? Let us attempt 
an answer by asking several others: Can water (of itself) 
rise above its own level? Can a clean thing come out of an 
unclean? Can the will reverse the whole tendency and strain 
of human nature? Can that which is under the dominion 
of sin originate that which is pure and holy? Manifestly not. 
If ever the will of a fallen and depraved creature is to move 
Godwards, a Divine power must be brought to bear upon 
it which will overcome the influences of sin that pull in a 
counter direction. This is only another way of saying, “No 
. man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me, 
draw him” (John 6:44). In other words, God’s people must 
be made willing in the day of His power (Ps. 110:3). As 
said Mr. Darby, “If Christ came to save that which is lost, 
free will has no place. Not that God prevents men from re- 
ceiving Christ—far from it. But even when God uses all 
possible inducements, all that is capable of exerting influence 
in the heart of man, it only serves to show that man will have 
none of it, that so corrupt is his heart, and so decided his 
will not to submit to God (however much it may be the devil 
who encourages him to sin) that nothing can induce him to 
receive the Lord, and to give up sin. If by the words, ‘free- 
dom of man,’ they mean that no one forces him to reject the 
Lord, this liberty fully exists. But if it is said that, on ac- 
count of the dominion of sin, of which he is the slave, and 
that voluntarily, he cannot escape from his condition, and 
make choice of the good—even while acknowledging it to be 
good, and approving of it—then he has no liberty whatever 
(italics ours). He is not subject to the law, neither indeed 
can be; hence, they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” 

The will is not sovereign; it is servant, because influenced 


180 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


and controlled by the other faculties of man’s being. The 
sinner is not a free agent because he is the slave of sin—this 
was Clearly implied in our Lord’s words, “If the Son shall 
therefore make you free, ye shall be free indeed’ (John 
8:36). Man is a rational being and as such responsible 
and accountable to God, but to affirm that he is a free moral 
agent is to deny that he 1s totally depraved—i. e., depraved in 
will as in everything else. Because man’s will is governed by 
his mind and heart, and because these have been vitiated and 
corrupted by sin, then it follows that if ever man is to turn 
or move in a Godward direction God Himself must work in 
him “both to will and to do of His good pleasure’ (Phil. 
2:13). Man’s boasted freedom is in truth “the bondage of 
corruption” ; he “serves divers lusts and pleasures.” Said a 
deeply taught servant of God, “Man is impotent as to his 
will. He has no will favorable to God. I believe in free 
will; but then it is a wll only free to act according to nature 
(italics ours). A dove has no will to eat carrion; a raven 
no will to eat the clean food of the dove. Put the nature of 
the dove into the raven and it will eat the food of the dove. 
Satan could have no will for holiness. We speak it with rev- 
erence, God could have no will for evil. The sinner in his 
sinful nature could never have a will according to God. For 
this he must be born again” (J. Denham Smith). This is 
just what we have contended for throughout this chapter— 
the will 1s regulated by the nature. 

Now in conclusion let us anticipate and dispose of the 
usual and inevitable objection—Why preach the Gospel if 
man 1s powerless to respond? Why bid the sinner come to 
Christ if sin has so enslaved him that he has no power in 
himself to come? Reply:—We do not preach the Gospel 
because we believe that men are free moral agents and there- 
fore capable of receiving Christ, but we preach it because 
we are commanded to do so (Mark 16:15), and though to 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD AND THE HUMAN WILL 181 


them that perish it is foolishness, yet “unto us which are 
saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18). “The foolish- 
ness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is 
stronger than men” (1 Cor. 1:25). The sinner is dead in 
trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1) and a dead man is utterly 
incapable of willing anything, hence it is that “they that are 
in the flesh (the unregenerate) cannot please God” (Rom. 
8:8). 

To fleshly wisdom it appears the height of folly to preach 
the Gospel to those that are dead, and therefore beyond the 
reach of doing anything themselves. Yes, but God’s ways 
are different from ours. It pleases God “by the foolishness 
of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:21). Man 
may deem it folly to prophesy to “dead bones’ and to say 
unto them, “O, ye dry bones, hear the Word of the Lord” 
(Ezek. 37:4). Ah! but then it is the Word of the Lord, and 
the words He speaks “they are spirit, and they are life’ 
(John 6:63). Wise men standing by the grave of Lazarus 
might pronounce it an evidence of insanity when the Lord 
addressed a dead man with the words, “Lazarus, Come 
forth.” Ah! but He who thus spake was and is Himself the 
Resurrection and the Life, and at His word even the dead 
live. We go forth to preach the Gospel, then, not because 
we believe that sinners have within themselves the power to 
receive the Saviour it proclaims, but because the Gospel itself 
is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth. 


2 


CLEA Cae ea Els ie 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. 


“So then every one of us 
shall give account of himself to God.” 
Romans 14:12. 


, 


y 


an a _ 
¢ fe, 
) 
t 
on 
ts 
ay 
é : 
’ 
«ei 
t 
t ‘ 
x 
* 
: ‘ 
fi 
/ 
' 
= 
% : 
er aes 
~ 3 
< ay 
= - 
' ‘ - 
- 
‘ 
é 
, ae 
i 
: . 
j 
. 
i 
‘ 
’ 
‘ 
5 > 
% P y 
n 
, 
‘ 
/ 4. 
. 4 
i f 
i ‘ 
bs 
! 
é d's 
+e : es 
' 
a ‘ 
‘ 
' iy® 
, 
' ¢ 
’ 
+ 
ae 
J S 


— 


ve 


Vil. GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN 
RESPONSIBILITY. 


much debated and difficult question of the human will. 
yes, We have shown that the will of the natural man is 
neither sovereign nor free but, instead, a servant and slave. 
We have argued that a right conception of the sinner’s will— 
its servitude—is essential to a just estimate of his depravity 
and ruin. The utter corruption and degradation of human 
nature is something which man hates to acknowledge and 
which he will hotly and insistently deny until he is ‘taught 
of God.’ Much, very much, of the unsound doctrine which 
we now hear on every hand is the direct and logical outcome 
of man’s repudiation of God’s exprest estimate of human de- 
pravity. Men are claiming that they are “increased with 
goods, and have need of nothing,” and know not that they 
are “wretched and miserable, and poor, and blind, and 
naked” (Rev. 3:17). They prate about the ‘Ascent of Man’ 
and deny his Fall. They put darkness for light and light for 
darkness. They boast of the ‘free moral agency’ of man 
when, in fact, he is in bondage to sin and enslaved by Satan— 
“taken captive by him at his will’ (2 Tim. 2:26). But if 
the natural man is not a ‘free moral agent’ does it also follow 
that he is not accountable? 

‘Free moral agency’ is an expression of human invention 
and, as we have said before, to talk of the freedom of the 
natural man is to flatly repudiate his spiritual ruin. Nowhere 
does Scripture speak of the freedom or moral ability of the 
sinner, on the contrary, it insists on his moral and spiritual 
mability. 


re: our last chapter we considered at some length the 


186 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


This is, admittedly, the most difficult branch of our sub- 
ject. Those who have ever devoted much study to this 
theme have uniformly recognized that the harmonizing of 
God’s Sovereignty with Man’s Responsibility is the gordian 
knot of theology. 

The main difficulty encountered is to define the relation- 
ship between God’s Sovereignty and man’s Responsibility. 
Many have summarily disposed of the difficulty by denying 
its existence. A certain class of theologians in their anxiety 
to maintain Man’s Responsibility have magnified it beyond 
all due proportions until God’s Sovereignty has been lost 
sight of, and in not a few instances flatly denied. Others have 
acknowledged that the Scriptures present both the Sovereign- 
ty of God and the responsibility of man but affirm that in our 
present finite condition and with our limited knowledge it is 
impossible to reconcile the two truths, though it is the boun- 
den duty of the believer to receive both. The present writer 
believes that it has been too readily assumed that the Scrip- 
tures themselves do not reveal the several points which show 
the conciliation of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibil- 
ity. While perhaps the Word of God does not clear up all 
the mystery (and this is said with reserve), it does throw 
much light upon the problem, and it seems to us more hon- 
oring to God and His Word to prayerfully search the Scrip- 
tures for the completer solution of the difficulty, and even 
though others have thus far searched in vain, that ought only 
to drive us more and more to our knees. God has been 
pleased to reveal many things out of His Word during the 
last century which were hidden from earlier students. Who 
then dare affirm that there is not much yet to be learned 
respecting our present.inquiry ! 

As we have said above our chief difficulty is to determine 
the meeting-point of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsi- 
bility. To many it has seemed that for God to assert His 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 187 


sovereignty, for Him to put forth His power and exert a 
direct influence upon man, for Him to do anything more 
than warn or invite, would be to interfere with man’s free- 
dom, destroy his responsibility, and reduce him to a 
machine. It is sad indeed to find one like the late Dr, Pier- 
son—whose writings are generally so scriptural and helpful 
—saying, “It is a tremendous thought that even God Him- 
self cannot control my moral frame, or constrain my moral 
choice. He cannot prevent me defying and denying Him, 
and would not exercise His power in such directions if He 
could, and could not if He would” (A Spiritual Clinique). 
It is sadder still to discover that many other respected and 
loved brethren are giving expression to the same sentiments. 
Sad, because directly at variance with the Holy Scriptures. 

It is our desire to face honestly the difficulties involved and 
to examine them carefully in what light God has been 
pleased to grant us. The chief difficulties might be expressed 
thus: first, How is it possible for God to so bring His power 
upon men that they are prevented from doing what they de- 
sire to do and impelled to do other things they do not desire 
to do, and yet to preserve their responsibility? Second, How 
can the sinner be held responsible for the doing of what he is 
unable to do? And how can he be justly condemned for 
not domg what he could not do? Third, How is it possible 
for God to decree that men shall commit certain sins, hold 
them responsible in the committal of them, and adjudge 
them guilty because they committed them? Fourth, How can 
the sinner be held responsible to receive Christ, and be 
damned for rejecting Him, when God had foreordained 
him to condemnation? We shall now deal with these several 
problems in the above order. 


188 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


I. How Is Ir PossisLe For Gop To So Brine Hts POWER 
to BEAR upon Men THat TuHey ARE PREVENTED 
FROM Dornc Wuat TuHey Desire To Do, anv IM- 
PELLED to Do OrnerR Tuincs THEY Do Nor DESIRE 
to Do, AND YET TO PRESERVE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY ? 


It would seem that if God put forth His power and ex- 
erted a direct influence upon men that their freedom would 
be interfered with. It looks as if God did anything more 
than warn and invite men that their responsibility would be 
infringed upon. We are told that God must not coerce man, 
still less, compel him, or otherwise he would be reduced to a 
machine. This sounds very plausible; it appears to be good 
philosophy, and based upon sound reasoning; it has been al- 
most universally accepted as an axiom in ethics; neverthe- 
less, it is refuted by Scripture! 

Let us turn first to Gen. 20:6—“And God said unto him 
in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the in- 
tegrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning 
against Me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.” It 
is argued, almost universally, that God must not interfere 
with man’s liberty, that he must not coerce or compel him, 
lest he be reduced to a machine. But the above scripture 
proves, unmistakably proves, that it is mot impossible for 
God to exert His power upon man without destroying his 
responsibility. Here is a case where God did exert His 
power, restrict man’s freedom, and prevent him from doing 
that which he otherwise would have done. 

Ere turning from this scripture let us note how it throws 
light upon the case of the first man. Would-be philosophers, 
who sought to be wise above that which was written, have 
argued that God could not have prevented Adam’s fall with- 
out reducing him to a mere automaton. They tell us, con- 
stantly, that God must not coerce or compel His creatures, 
otherwise He would destroy their accountability. But the 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 189 


answer to all such philosophisings is that Scripture records 
a number of instances where we are expressly told God did 
prevent certain of His creatures from sinning against Him- 
self and also against His people, in view of which all men’s 
reasonings are utterly worthless. If God could “withhold” 
Abimelech from sinning against Him then why was He un- 
able to do the same with Adam? Should someone ask, Then 
why did not God do so? we might return the question by 
asking, Why did not God “withhold” Satan from falling? 
or, Why did not God “withhold” the Kaiser from starting 
the recent War? The usual reply is, as we have said, God 
could not without interfering with man’s “freedom” and re- 
ducing him to a machine. But the case of Abimelech proves 
conclusively that such a reply is untenable and erroneous— 
we might add wicked and blasphemous, for who are we to 
limit the Most High! How dare any finite creature take it 
upon him to say what the Almighty can and cannot do? 
Should we be pressed further as to why God refused to exer- 
cise His power and prevent Adam’s fall, we should say, Be- 
cause Adam’s fall better served His own wise and blessed 
purpose—among other things, it provided an opportunity to 
demonstrate that where sin had abounded grace could much 
more abound. But we might ask further; Why did God 
place in the garden the tree of the knowledge of good and 
evil, when He foresaw that man would disobey His prohibi- 
tion and eat of it; for mark, it was God and not Satan who 
made that tree. Should someone respond, Then is God the 
Author of Sin? We would have to ask, in turn, What is 
meant by “Author”? Plainly it was God’s will that sin 
Should enter this world, otherwise it would not have en- 
tered, for nothing happens save as God has eternally decreed. 
Moreover, there was more than a bare permission, for God 
only permits that which He has purposed. But we leave now 
the origin of sin, insisting once more, however, that God 


190 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


could have “withheld” Adam from sinning without destroy- 
ing his responsibility. 

The case of Abimelech does not stand alone. Another il- 
lustration of the same principle is seen in the history of 
Balaam already noticed in the last chapter, but concerning 
which a further word is in place. Balak the Moabite sent for 
this heathen prophet to “curse” Israel. A handsome reward 
was offered for his services, and a careful reading of Num- 
bers 22—24 will show that Balaam was willing, yea, anxious, 
to accept Balak’s offer and thus sin against God and His 
people. But Divine power “withheld” him. Mark his own 
admission, “And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come 
unto thee: have I now any power at all to say anything? 
the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak” 
(Num. 22:38). Again, after Balak had remonstrated with 
Balaam, we read, “He answered and said, Must I not take 
heed to speak that which the Lord hath put in my mouth? 

. . Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and 
He hath blessed ; and I cannot reverse it” (23:12, 20). Sure- 
ly these verses show us God’s power, and Balaam’s power- 
lessness: man’s will frustrated, and God’s will performed. 
But was Balaam’s “freedom” or responsibility destroyed? 
Certainly not, as we shall yet-seek to show. 

One more illustration: “And the fear of the Lord fell 
upon all the kingdoms of the lands that were round about 
Judah, so that they made no war against Jehoshaphat’ 
(2 Chron. 17:10). The implication here is clear. Had not 
the “fear of the Lord” fallen upon these kingdoms they 
would have made war upon Judah. God’s restraining power 
alone prevented them. Had their own will been allowed to 
act “war” would have been the consequence. Thus we see 
that Scripture teaches that God “withholds” nations as well 
as individuals, and that when it pleaseth Him to do so He 
interposes and prevents war. Compare further Gen. 35:5. 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 191 


The question which now demands our consideration is, 
How is it possible for God to “withhold” men from sin- 
ning and yet not to interfere with their liberty and responsi- 
bility—a question which so many say is incapable of solu- 
tion in our present finite condition. This question causes us 
to ask, In what does moral “freedom,” real moral freedom, 
consist? We answer, it is the being delivered from the 
BONDAGE of sin. The more any soul is emancipated from 
the thraldom of sin, the more does he enter into a state of 
freedom—“TIf the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall 
be free indeed” (John 8:36). In the above instances God 
“withheld” Abimelech, Balaam, and the heathen kingdoms 
from sinning, and therefore we affirm that He did not in any- 
wise interfere with their real freedom. The nearer a soul 
approximates to sinlessness, the nearer does he approach to 
God’s holiness. Scripture tells us that God “cannot lie,” 
and that He “cannot be tempted,” but is He any the less free 
because He cannot do that which is evil? Surely not. Then 
is it not evident that the more man is raised up to God, 
and the more he is “withheld” from sinning, the greater 
his real freedom is! | 

A pertinent example setting forth the meeting-place of 
God’s Sovereignty and man’s Responsibility as it relates 
to the question of moral freedom is found in connection 
with the giving to us of the Holy Scriptures. In the com- 
munication of His Word God was pleased to employ hu- 
man instruments, and in the using of them He did not re- 
duce them to mere mechanical amanuenses: “Knowing this 
first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private in- 
terpretation (Greek: of its own origination). For the 
prophecy came not at any time by the will of man: but holy 
men of God spake moved by the Holy Spirit’ (2 Pet. 1:20, 
21). Here we have man’s responsibility and God’s sover- 
eignty placed in juxtaposition. These holy men were “moved 


192 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


(Greek : “borne along”) by the Holy Spirit, yet was not their 
moral responsibility disturbed nor their “freedom” impaired. 
God enlightened their minds, enkindled their hearts, revealed 
to them His truth, and so controlled them that error on their 
part was by Him made impossible as they communicated His 
mind and will to men. ‘But what was it that might have, 
cvould have, caused error, had not God controlled as He did 
the instruments which He employed? The answer is SIN, 
the sin which was in them. But as we have seen, the holding 
in check of sin, the preventing of the exercise of the carnal 
mind in these “holy men,” was not a destroying of their 
“freedom,” rather was it the inducting of them into real 
freedom. | 

A final word should be added here concerning the nature 
of true liberty. There are three chief things concerning which 
men in general greatly err: misery and happiness, folly and 
wisdom, bondage and liberty. The world counts none miser- 
able but the afflicted, and none happy but the prosperous, be- 
cause they judge by the present ease of the flesh. Again; 
the world is pleased with a false show of wisdom (which is 
“foolishness” with God), neglecting that which makes wise 
unto salvation. Avs to liberty, men would be at their own 
disposal, and live as they please. They suppose the only true 
liberty is to be at the command and under the control of none 
above themselves, and live according to their heart’s desire. 
But this is a thraldom and bondage of the worst kind. True 
liberty is not the power to live as we please, but to live as we 
ought! Hence, the only One Who has ever trod this earth 
since Adam’s fall that has enjoyed perfect freedom was the 
Man Christ Jesus, the Holy Servant of God, Whose meat 
it ever was to do the will of the Father. 

We now turn to consider the question 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 193 


Il. How Can THE SINNER BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR 
THE DoiInc oF WHat He Is UNABLE To Do? Anp 
How Can HE BE Justty CoNDEMNED For Not DOING 
Wuat He COULD Nort Do? 


As a creature the natural man is responsible to love, obey, 
and serve God; as a sinner he is responsible to repent and 
believe the Gospel. But at the outset we are confronted with 
the fact that the natural man is unable to love and serve God, 
and that the sinner, of himself, cannot repent and believe. 
First, let us prove what we have just said. We begin by 
quoting and considering John 6:44, “No man can come to 
Me, except the Father which has sent Me draw him”. The 
heart of the natural man (every man) is so “desperately 
wicked” that if he is left to himself he will never ‘come to 
Christ.’ This statement would not be questioned if the full 
force of the words Coming to Christ was properly appre-— 
hended. We shall therefore digress a little at this point to 
define and consider what is implied and involved in the 
words “No man can come to Me’—cf. John 5:40, “Ye will 
not come to Me that ye might have life.” 

For the sinner to come to Christ that he might have life, 
is for him to realize the awful danger of his situation; is for 
him to see that the sword of Divine justice is suspended over 
his head; is to awaken to the fact that there is but a step be- 
twixt him and death, and that after death is the “judg- 
ment ;” and in consequence of this discovery, is for him to 
be in real earnest to escape, and in such earnestness that he 
shall flee from the wrath to come, cry unto God for mercy, 
and agonize to enter in at the “strait gate.” 

To come to Christ for life is for the sinner to feel and 
acknowledge that he is utterly destitute of any claim upon 
God’s favor; is to see himself as ‘without strength,’ lost 
and undone; is to admit that he is deserving of nothing but 
eternal death, thus taking side with God against himself ; is 


194 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


for him to cast himself into the dust before God, and humbly 
sue for Divine mercy. 

To come to Christ for life is for the sinner to abandon 
his own righteousness and be ready to be made the righteous- 
ness of God in Christ; is to disown his own wisdom and be 
guided by His; it is to repudiate his own will and be ruled 
by His; it is to unreservedly receive the Lord Jesus as his 
Saviour and Lord, as his All in all. 

Such, in part and in brief, is what is implied and involved 
in Coming to Christ. But is the sinner willing to take such 
an attitude before God? No; for in the first place, he does 
not realize the danger of his situation and in consequence is 
not in real earnest after his escape; instead, men are for the 
most part at ease and apart from the operations of the Holy 
Spirit whenever they are disturbed by the alarms of con- 
science or the dispensations of providence they flee to any 
other refuge but Christ. In the second place, they will not 
acknowledge that all their righteousnesses are as filthy rags 
but, like the Pharisee, will thank God they are not as the 
Publican. And in the third place, they are not ready to re- 
ceive Christ as their Saviour and Lord for they are unwil- 
ling to part with their idols: they had rather hazard their 
soul’s eternal welfare than give them up. Hence we say that, 
left to himself, the natural man is so depraved at heart that 
he cannot come to Christ. 

The words of our Lord quoted above by no means stand 
alone. Quite a number of Scriptures set forth the moral and 
spiritual imability of the natural man. In Joshua 24:19 we 
read, “And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the 
Lord: for He is a holy God.” To the Pharisees Christ said, 
“Why do ye not understand My speech? Even because ye 
cannot hear My word” (John 8:43). And again: “The car- 
nal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 195 


law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are 
in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7,8). 

But now the question returns, How can God hold responsi- 
ble the sinner for failing to do what he is unable to do? This 
necessitates a careful definition of terms. Just what is meant 
by “unable” and “cannot”? 

Now let it be clearly understood that when we speak of 
the sinner’s inability we do not mean that if men desired to 
come to Christ they lack the necessary power to carry out 
their desire. No; the fact is that the sinner’s inability or 
absence of power is itself due to lack of willingness to come 
to Christ, and this lack of willingness is the fruit of a de- 
praved heart. It is of first importance that we distinguish 
between natural inability and moral and spiritual inability. 
For example, we read, “But Ahijah could not see; for his 
eyes were set by reason of his age” (1 Kgs. 14:4) ; and again, 
“The men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could 
not: for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them” 
(Jonah 1:13). In both of these passages the words “could 
not” refer to natural inability. But when we read, “And 
when his brethren saw that their father loved him (Joseph) 
more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not 
speak peaceably unto him” (Gen. 37:4), it is clearly moral 
inability that is in view. They did not lack the natural abil- 
ity to “speak peaceably unto him” for they were not dumb. 
Why then was it that they “could not speak peaceably unto 
him”? The answer is given in the same verse: it was be- 
cause “they hated him.” Again; in 2 Pet. 2:14 we read of a 
certain class of wicked men “having eyes full of adultery, 
and that cannot cease from sin.” Here again it is moral 
inability that is in view. Why is it that these men “cannot 
cease from sin’? The answer is, Because their eyes were 
full of adultery. So of Rom. 8:8—“They that are in the 
flesh cannot please God”: here it is spiritual inability. Why 


196 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


is it that the natural man “cannot please God”? Because he 
is “alienated from the life of God” (Eph. 4:18). No man 
can choose that from which his heart is averse—“O genera- 
tion of vipers how can ye, being evil, speak good things ?” 
(Matt. 12:34). “No man can come to Me, except the Fa- 
ther which hath sent Me draw him” (John 6:44). Here 
again it is moral and spiritual inability which is before us. 
Why is it the sinner cannot come to Christ unless he is 
“drawn”? The answer is, Because his wicked heart loves 
sin and hates Christ. 

We trust we have made ‘it clear that the Scriptures dis- 
tinguish sharply between natural inability and moral and 
spiritual inability. Surely all can see the difference between 
the blindness of Bartimeus who was ardently desirous of 
receiving his sight, and the Pharisees, whose eyes were 
closed “lest at any time they should see with their eyes, 
and hear with their ears, and should understand with their 
heart, and should be converted” (Matt. 13:15). But should 
it be said, The natural man could come to Christ if he wished 
to do so, we answer, Ah! but in that IF lies the hinge of the 
whole matter. The Inability of the sinner consists of the 
want of moral power to wish and will so as to actually per- 
form. | 

What we have contended for above is of first importance. 
Upon the distinction between the sinner’s natural Ability and 
moral and spiritual Inability rests his Responsibility. The 
depravity of the human heart does not destroy man’s ac- 
countability to God; so far from this being the case the very 
moral Inability of the sinner only serves to increase his 
guilt. This is easily proven by a reference to the scriptures 
cited above. We read that Joseph’s brethren “could not 
speak peaceably unto him,” and why? It was because they 
“hated” him. But was this moral inability of theirs any 
excuse? Surely not: in this very moral inability consisted 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 197 


the greatness of their sin. So of those concerning whom it 
is said, “They cannot cease from sin” (2 Pet. 2:14), and 
why? Because “their eyes were full of adultery,” but that 
only made their case worse. It was a real fact that they 
could not cease from sin, yet this did not excuse them—it 
only made their sin the greater. 

Should some sinner here object, I cannot help being born 
into this world with a depraved heart and therefore I am not 
responsible for my moral and spiritual inability which accrue 
from it, the reply would be, Responsibility and Culpability 
lie in the indulgence of the depraved propensities, the free 
indulgence, for God does not force any to sin. Men might 
pity me, but they certainly would not excuse me if I gave 
vent to a fiery temper and then sought to extenuate my- 
self on the ground of having inherited that temper from 
my parents. Their own common sense is sufficient to 
guide their judgment in such a case as this. They would 
argue I was responsible to restrain my temper. Why 
then cavil against this same principle in the case supposed 
above? “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee thou 
wicked servant” surely applies here! What would the 
reader say to a man who had robbed him and who later 
argued in defence “I cannot help being a thief, that is my 
nature’? Surely the reply would be, Then the peniten- 
tiary is the proper place for that man. What then shall 
be said to the one who argues that he cannot help fol- 
lowing the bent of his sinful heart? Surely, that the Lake 
of Fire is where such an one must go. Did ever murder- 
er plead that he hated his victim so much that he could 
not go near him without slaying him. Would not that 
only magnify the enormity of his crime! Then what of 
tlie one who loves sin so much that he is “at enmity 
against God”! 

The fact of man’s Responsibility is almost universally 


198 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


acknowledged. It is inherent in man’s moral nature. It is 
not only taught in Scripture but witnessed to by the natur- 
al conscience. The basis or ground of human responsibil- 
ity is human ability. What is implied by this general term 
ability must now be defined. Perhaps a concrete example — 
will be more easily grasped by the average reader than an 
abstract argument. 

Suppose a man owed me $100 and could fa plenty of 
money for his own pleasures but none for me, yet plead- 
ed that he was unable to pay me. What would I say? I 
would say that the only ability that was lacking was an hon- 
est heart. But would it not be an unfair construction of 
my words if a friend of my dishonest debtor should say I 
had stated that an honest heart was that which constituted 
the ability to pay the debt? No; I would reply: the ability 
of my debtor lies in the power of his hand to write me a 
check and this he has, but what is lacking is an honest prin- 
ciple. It is his power to write me a check which makes him 
responsible to do so, and the fact that he lacks an honest 
heart does not destroy his accountability.* 

Now in like manner the sinner while altogether lacking 
in moral and spiritual ability does, nevertheless, possess nat- 
ural ability, and this it is which renders him accountable un- 
to God. Men have the same natural faculties to love God 
with as they have to hate Him with, the same hearts to be- 
lieve with which they disbelieve, and it is their failure to love 
and believe which constitutes their guilt. An idiot or an in- 
fant is not personally responsible to God because Jacking in 
natural ability. But the normal man who is endowed with 
rationality, who is gifted with a conscience that is capable of 
distinguishing between right and wrong, who 1s able to 
weigh eternal issues IS a responsible being, and it is be- 


*The terms of this example are suggested by an illustration used 
by the late Andrew Fuller. 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 199 


cause he does possess these very faculties that he will yet 
have to “give account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12). 

We say again that the above distinction between the natur- 
al ability and the moral and spiritual inability of the sinner 
is of prime importance. By nature he possesses natural 
ability but Jacks moral and spiritual ability. The fact that 
he does not possess the latter does not destroy his responsi- 
bility because his responsibility rests upon the fact that he 
does possess the former. Let me illustrate again. Here are 
two men guilty of theft: the first is an idiot, the second per- 
fectly sane but the offspring of criminal parents. No just 
judge would sentence the former; but every right-minded 
judge would the latter. Even though the second of these 
thieves possessed a vitiated moral nature inherited from 
criminal parents that would not excuse him providing he was 
a normal rational being. Here then is the ground of human 
accountability—the possession of rationality plus the gift of 
conscience. It is because the sinner is endowed with these 
natural faculties that he is a responsible creature; because 
he does not use his natural powers for God’s glory constitutes 
his guilt. 

How can it remain consistent with His mercy that God 
should require the debt of obedience from him that is not 
able to pay? In addition to what has been said above, it 
should be pointed out that God has not lost His right, even 
though man has lost his power. The creature’s impotence 
does not cancel his obligation. A drunken servant is a serv- 
ant still, and it is contrary to all sound reasoning to argue that 
his master loses his rights through his servant’s default. 
Moreover, it is of first importance that we should ever bear 
in mind that God contracted with us in Adam, who was our 
federal head and representative, and in him God gave us a 
power which we lost through our first parent’s fall; but 


200 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


though our power be gone, nevertheless, God may justly de- 
mand His due of obedience and of service. 
We turn now to ponder 


III. How Is Ir Possist—e ror Gop to DECREE Tuart 
Men SHOULD Commit Certain Sins, Hotp THEM 
RESPONSIBLE In THE CoMMITTAL OF THEM, AND AD 
JUDGE THEM GuILTY BEcUSE THEY COMMITTED THEM? 


Let us now consider the extreme case of Judas. We 
hold that it is clear from Scripture that God decreed from 
all eternity that Judas should betray the Lord Jesus. If 
anyone should challenge this statement we refer him to the 
prophecy of Zechariah through whom God declared that 
His Son should be sold for “Thirty pieces of silver” (Zech. 
11:12). As we have said in earlier pages, in prophecy God 
makes known what will be and in making known what will 
be He is but revealing to us what He has ordained shall be. 
That Judas was the one through whom the prophecy of Zech- 
ariah was fulfilled needs not to be argued. But now the 
question we have to face is, Was Judas a responsible agent in 
fulfilling this decree of God? We reply that he was. Re- 
sponsibility attaches mainly to the motive and intention of 
the one committing the act. This is recognised on every 
hand. Human law distinguishes between a blow inflicted by 
accident (without evil design) and a blow delivered with 
‘malice aforethought. Apply then this same principle to the 
case of Judas. What was the design of his heart when he 
bargained with the priests? Manifestly he had no conscious 
desire to fulfil any decree of God, though unknown to him- 
self he was actually doing so. On the contrary, his inten- 
tion was evil only, and therefore, though God had decreed 
and directed his act, nevertheless, his own evil intention 
rendered him justly guilty as he afterwards acknowledged 
nimself—“TI have betrayed innocent blood.” It was the same 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 201 


with the Crucifixion of Christ. Scripture plainly declares 
that He was “delivered up by the determinate counsel and 
foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23), and that though “the 
kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered to- 
gether against the Lord, and against His Christ” yet, not- 
withstanding, it was but “for to do whatsoever Thy hand and 
Thy counsel determined before to be done” (Acts 4:26, 28) ; 
which verses teach very much more than a bare permission 
by God, declaring as they do that the Crucifixion and all its 
details had been decreed by God. Yet, nevertheless, it was 
by “wicked hands,” not merely “human hands” that our Lord 
was “crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23). “Wicked” because 
the intention of His crucifiers was only evil. 

But it might be objected that if God had decreed that 
Judas should betray Christ, and that the Jews and Gentiles 
should crucify Him, they could not do otherwise, and there- 
fore, they were not responsible for their intentions. The 
answer is, Ged had decreed that they should perform the 
acts they did, but in the actual perpetration of these deeds 
they were justly guilty, because their own purposes in the 
doing of them was evil only. Let it be emphatically said that 
God does not produce the sinful dispositions of any of His 
creatures, though He does restrain and direct them to the 
accomplishing of His own purposes. Hence He is neither 
the Author nor the Approver of sin. This distinction was 
expressed thus by Augustine: “That men sin proceeds from 
themselves; that in sinning they perform this or that action, 
is from the power of God who divideth the darkness accord- 
ing to His pleasure.” Thus it is written, “A man’s heart de- 
viseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps’ (Pro. 16:9). 
What we would here insist upon is that God’s decrees are not 
the necessitating cause of the sins of men but the foredeter- 
mined and prescribed boundings and directings of men’s sin- 
ful acts. In connection with the betrayal of Christ, God did 


202 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


not decree that He should be sold by one of His creatures 
and then take up a good man, instill an evil desire into his 
. heart and thus force him to perform the terrible deed in 
order to execute His decree. No; not so do the Scriptures 
represent it. Instead, God decreed the act and selected the 
one who was to perform the act, but He did not make him 
evil in order that he should perform the deed; on the con- 
trary, the betrayer was a “devil” at the time the Lord Jesus 
chose him as one of the twelve (John 6:70), and in the 
exercise and manifestation of his own devilry God simply 
directed his actions, actions which were perfectly agreeable 
to his own vile heart and performed with the most wicked in- 
tentions. Vhus it was with the Crucifixion. 


IV. How Can THE SINNER BE HELpD RESPONSIBLE TO RE- 
CEIVE CHRIST, AND Be DAMNED For ReEjJecTING Him, 
WHEN Gop FoROoRDAINED Him TO CONDEMNATION ? 


Really, this question has been covered in what has been 
said under the other queries, but for the benefit of those who 
are exercised upon this point we give it a separate, though 
brief, examination. In considering the above difficulty the 
following points should be carefully weighed: 

In the first place, no sinner, while he is in this world, knows 
for certain, nor can he know, that he is a “vessel of wrath 
fitted to destruction”. This belongs to the hidden counsels 
of God to which he has not access. God’s secret will is no 
business of his; God’s revealed will (in the Word) is the 
_ standard of human responsibility.* And God’s revealed will 
is plain. Each sinner is among those whom God now “com- 
mandeth to repent” (Acts 17:30). Each sinner who hears 
the Gospel is “commanded” to believe (1 John 3:23). And 
all who do truly repent and believe are saved. Therefore, is 
every sinner responsible to repent and believe. 


*See Appendix I. 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 203 


In the second place, it is the duty of every sinner to search 
the Scriptures which “are able to make wise unto salvation” 
(2 Tim. 3:15). It is the sinner’s “duty” because the Son of 
God has commanded him to search the Scriptures (John 
5:39). If he searches them with a heart that is seeking after 
God, then does he put himself in the way where God is ac- 
customed to meet with sinners. Upon this point the Puritan 
Manton has written very helpfully. 

“I cannot say to every one that ploweth, infallibly, that he 
shall have a good crop; but this I can say to him, It is God’s 
use to bless the diligent and provident. I cannot say to every 
one that desireth posterity, Marry, and you shall have chil- 
dren ; I cannot say infallibly to him that goeth forth to battle 
for his country’s good that he shall have victory and success; 
but Ican say, as Joab, (1 Chron. 19:13) ‘Be of good courage, 
and let us behave ourselves valiantly for our people and the 
cities of our God, and let the Lord do what is good in His 
sight’. I cannot say infallibly you shall have grace; but I 
can say to every one, Let him use the means, and leave the 
success of his labor and his own salvation to the will and 
good pleasure of God. I cannot say this infallibly, for there 
is no obligation upon God. And still this work is made 
the fruit of God’s will and mere arbitrary dispensation—‘Of 
His own will begat He us by the Word of Truth’ (James r: 
18). Let us do what God hath commanded, and let God do 
what He will. And I need not say so; for the whole world 
in all their actings are and should be guided by this principle, 
Let us do our duty, and refer the success to God, Whose or- 
dinary practice it is to meet with the creature that seeketh 
after Him; yea, He is with us already; this earnest im- 
portunity in the use of means proceeding from the earnest 
impression of His grace. And therefore, since He is before- 
hand with us, and hath not showed any backwardness to our 
good, we have no reason to despair of His goodness and 


204 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


mercy, but rather to hope for the best” (Vol. XXI, page 
ZED). 

God has been pleased to give to men the Holy Scriptures 
which “testify” of the Saviour, and make known the way of 
salvation. Every sinner has the same natural faculties for 
the reading of the Bible as he has for the reading of the news- 
paper; and if he is illiterate or blind so that he is unable 
to read, he has the same mouth with which to ask a friend to 
read the Bible to him, as he has to enquire concerning other 
matters. If, then, God has given to men His Word, and in 
that Word has made known the way of salvation, and if men 
are commanded to search those Scriptures which are able to 
make them wise unto salvation, and they refuse to do so, then 
is 1t plain that they are justly censureable, that their blood 
lies on their own heads, and that God can righteously cast 
them into the Lake of Fire. 

In the third place, should it be objected, Admitting all 
you have said above, Is it not still a fact that each of the non- 
elect is unable to repent and believe? The reply is, Yes. 
Of every sinner it is a fact that, of himself, he cannot come to 
Christ. And from God’s side the “cannot” is absolute. But 
we are now dealing with the responsibility of the sinner (the 
sinner foreordained to condemnation, though he knows it 
not), and from the human side the inability of the sinner is a 
moral one, as previously pointed out. Moreover, it needs 
to be borne in mind that in addition to the moral inability of 
the sinner there is a voluntary inability, too. The sinner 
must be regarded not only as impotent to do good, but as de- 
lighting in evil. From the human side, then, the “cannot” is 
a will not, it is a voluntary impotence. Man’s impotence lies 
in his obstinancy. Hence, is everyone left “without excuse”’. 
And hence, is God “clear” when He judgeth (Psa. 51:4), 
and righteous in damning all who “Jove darkness rather than 
light’. 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 205 


A brief word now concerning the extent of human re- 
sponsibility. 

It is obvious that the measure of human responsibil- 
ity varies in different cases and is greater or less with 
particular individuals. The standard of measurement was 
given in the Saviour’s words, “For unto whomsoever much 
is given, of him shall much be required” (Luke 12:48). Sure- 
ly God did not require as much from those living in Old 
Testament times as He does from those who have been 
born during the Christian dispensation. Surely God will 
not require as much from those who lived during the ‘dark 
ages, when the Scriptures were accessible to but a few, as 
He will from those of this generation when practically -every 
family in the land own a copy of His Word for themselves. 
In the same way, God will not demand from the heathen 
what He will from those in christendom. The heathen will 
not perish because they have not believed in Christ, but be- 
cause they failed to live up to the light which they did have— 
the testimony of God in nature and conscience. 

To sum up. The fact of man’s responsibility rests upon 
his natural ability, is witnessed to by conscience, and is in- 
sisted on throughout the Scriptures. The ground of man’s 
responsibility is that he is a rational creature capable of 
weighing eternal issues, and that he possesses a written Rev- 
elation from God in which his relationship with and duty to- 
ward his Creator is plainly defined. The measure of re- 
sponsibility varies in different individuals but is determined 
by the degree of light each has enjoyed from God. The 
problem of human responsibility receives at least a partial 
solution in the Holy Scriptures, and it is our solemn obliga- 
tion as well as privilege to search them prayerfully and 
carefully for further light, looking to the Holy Spirit to 
guide us “into all] truth.” It is written, “The meek will He 
guide in judgment: and the meek will He teach His way” 


(Ps. 25:9). 


oe 


hd 


—«.# 


COAR TERN TNE: 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER. 


IX. GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER. 


S>~J HROUGHOUT this book it has been our chief aim to 

(5) ) exalt the Creator and abase the creature. The well- 
WS nigh universal tendency, now, is to magnify man and 
dishonor and degrade God. On every hand it will be found 
that when spiritual things are under discussion the human 
side and element is pressed and stressed, and the Divine side, 
if not altogether ignored, is relegated to the background. This 
holds true of very much of the modern teaching about prayer. 
In the great majority of the books written and in the sermons 
preached upon prayer, the human element fills the scene al- 
most entirely: it is the conditions which we must meet, the 
promises we must “claim”, the things we must do, in order 
to get our requests granted; and God’s claims, God’s rights, 
God’s glory are disregarded. 

As a fair sample of what is being given out today we sub- 
join a brief editorial which appeared recently in one of the 
leading religious weeklies entitled “Prayer, or Fate 2” 

“God in His sovereignty has ordained that human des- 
tinies may be changed and moulded by the will of man. 
This is at the heart of the truth that prayer changes 
things, meaning that God changes things when men pray. 
Some one has strikingly expressed it this way: ‘There are 
certain things that will happen in a man’s life whether he 
prays or not. There are other things that will happen if 
he prays, and will not happen if he does not pray’. A 
Christian worker was impressed by these sentences as 
he entered a business office, and he prayed that the Lord 
would open the way to speak to some one about Christ, 
reflecting that things would be changed because he prayed. 


210 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


Then his mind turned to other things and the prayer was 

forgotten. The opportunity came to speak to the business 

man on whom he was calling, but he did not grasp it, and 

was on his way out when he remembered his prayer of a 

half hour before, and God’s answer. He promptly re- 

turned and had a talk with the business man, who, though 

a church-member, had never in his life been asked wheth- 

er he was saved. Let us give ourselves to prayer, and 

open the way for God to change things. Let us beware 
lest we become virtual fatalists by failing to exercise our 

God-given wills in praying”. 

The above illustrates what is now being taught on the 
subject of prayer, and the deplorable thing is that scarcely 
a voice is lifted in protest. To say that “human destinies may 
be changed and moulded by the will of man” is rank infi- 
delity—that is the only proper term for it. Should any one 
challenge this classification we would ask them whether they 
can find an infidel anywhere who would dissent from such a 
statement, and we are confident that such an one could not 
be found. To say that “God has ordained that human desti- 
nies may be changed and moulded by the will of man” is ab- 
solutely untrue. “Human destiny” is settled not by “the 
will of man,” but by the will of God. That which determines 
human destiny is whether or not a man has been born again, 
for it is written, “Except a man be born again he cannot see 
the kingdom of God”. And as to whose will, whether God’s 
or man’s, is responsible for the new birth is settled, unequiv- 
ocally, by John 1 :13—“‘Which were born, not of blood, nor 
of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but OF GOD”. 
To say that “human destiny” may be changed by the will of 
man, is to make the creature’s will supreme, and that is, 
virtually, to dethrone God. But what saith the Scriptures? 
Let the Book answer: “The Lord killeth, and maketh alive: 
He bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. The Lord 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER 211 


maketh poor, and maketh rich: He bringeth low, and lifteth 
up. He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the 
beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to 
make them inherit the throne of glory” (1 Sam. 2:6-8). 

Turning back to the Editorial here under review, we are 
next told, “This is at the heart of the truth that prayer chang- 
es things, meaning that God changes things when men pray.” 
Almost everywhere we go today one comes across a motto- 
card bearing the inscription “Prayer Changes Things”. As 
to what these words are designed to signify is evident from 
the current literature on prayer—we are to persuade God to 
change His purpose. Concerning this we shall have more to 
say below. 

Again, the Editor tells us, “Some one has strikingly ex- 
pressed it this way: “There are certain things that will hap- 
pen in a man’s life whether he prays or not. There are other 
things that will happen if he prays, and will not happen if 
he does not pray’.” That things happen whether a man prays 
or not is exemplified daily in the lives of the unregenerate, 
most of whom never pray at all. That ‘other things will 
happen if he prays’ is in need of qualification. If a believer 
prays in faith and asks for those things which are according 
to God’s will he will most certainly obtain that for which he 
has asked. Again, that other things will happen if he prays, is 
also true in respect to the subjective benefits derived from 
prayer: God will become more real to him and His promises 
more precious. That other things ‘will not happen if he does 
not pray’ is true so far as his own life is concerned—a prayer- 
less life means a life lived out of communion with God and 
all that is involved by this. But to affirm that God will not 
and cannot bring to pass His eternal purpose unless we pray, 
is utterly erroneous, for the same God who has decreed the 
end has also decreed that His end shall be reached through 
His appointed means, and one of these is prayer. The God 


212 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


who has determined to grant a blessing, also gives a spirit 
of supplication which first seeks the blessing. 

The example cited in the above Editorial of the Christian 
Worker and the business man is a very unhappy one to say 
the least, for according to the terms of the illustration the 
Christian Worker’s prayer was not answered by God at all, 
inasmuch as, apparently, the way was not opened to speak 
to the business man about his soul. But on leaving the 
office and recalling his prayer the Christian Worker (per- 
haps in the energy of the flesh) determined to answer the 
prayer for himself, and instead of leaving the Lord to “open 
the way” for him, took matters into his own hand. 

We quote next from one of the latest books issued on 
Prayer. In it the author says, “The possibilities and neces- 
sity of prayer, its power and results, are manifested in ar- 
resting and changing the purposes of God and in relieving 
the stroke of His power”. Such an assertion as this is a hor- 
rible reflection upon the character of the Most High God who 
“doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and 
among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His 
hand, or say unto Him, What doest Thou?” (Dan. 4:35). 
There is 10 need whatever for God to change His designs or 
alter His purpose, for the all-sufficient reason that these were 
framed under the influence of perfect goodness and unerr- 
ing wisdom. Men may have cccasion to alter their purposes, 
for in their short-sightedness they are frequently unable to 
anticipate what may arise after their plans are formed, But 
not so with God, for He knows the end from the beginning. 
To affirm that God changes His purpose is either to impugn 
His goodness or to deny His eternal wisdom. 

In the same book we are told, “The prayers of God’s saints 
are the capital stock in heaven by which Christ carries on 
His great work upon earth. The great throes and mighty 
convulsions on earth are the results of these prayers. Eartb 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER 213 


is changed, revolutionized, angels move on more powerful, 
more rapid wing, and God’s policy is shaped as the prayers 
are more numerous, more efficient”. If possible, this is even 
worse, and we have no hesitation in denominating it blas- 
phemy. In the first place, it flatly denies Eph. 3:11, which 
speaks of God’s having an “eternal purpose”. If God’s pur- 
pose is an eternal one, then His “policy” is not being 
“shaped” today. In the second place, it contradicts Eph. 1:11 
which expressly declares that God “worketh all things after 
the counsel of His own will,’ therefore it follows that, 
“God's policy” is not being “shaped” by man’s prayers. In 
the third place, such a statement as the above makes the will 
of the creature supreme, for if our prayers shape God’s 
policy then is the Most High subordinate to a worm of 
the earth. Well might the Holy Spirit ask through the 
apostle, “For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or 
who hath been His counsellor?” (Rom. 11:34). 

Such thoughts on prayer as we have been citing are due 
to low and inadequate conceptions of God Himself. It 
ought to be apparent that there could be little or no comfort 
in praying to a God that was like the chameleon which chang- 
es its color every day. What encouragement is there to lift 
up our hearts to One who is in one mind yesterday and an- 
other today? What would be the use of petitioning an earth- 
ly monarch if we knew he was so mutable as to grant a pe- 
tition one day and deny it another? Is it not the very un- 
changeableness of God which is our greatest encouragement 
to pray? It is because He is “without variableness or shad- 
ow of turning’’ we are assured that if we ask anything ac- 
cording to His will we are most certain of being heard. Well 
did Luther remark, “Prayer is not overcoming God’s reluc- 
tance, but laying hold of His willingness.” 

And this leads us to offer a few remarks concerning the 
design of prayer. Why has God appointed that we should 


214 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


pray’? The vast majority of people would reply, In order 
that we may obtain from God the things which we need. 
While this is one of the purposes of prayer, it is by no means 
the chief one. Moreover, it considers prayer only from the 
human side, and prayer sadly needs to be viewed from the 
Divine side. Let us look, then, at some of the reasons why 
God has bidden us to pray. 

First and foremost, prayer has been appointed that the 
Lord God Himself should be honored. God requires we 
should recognize that He is, indeed, “the high and lofty One 
that inhabiteth eternity” (Isa. 57:17). God requires that 
we shall own His umversal dominion: in petitioning God for 
rain Elijah did but confess His control over the elements; 
- in praying to God to deliver a poor sinner from the wrath 
to come, we acknowledge that “salvation is of the Lord” 
(Jonah 2:9) ; in supplicating His blessing on the Gospel unto 
the uttermost parts of the earth, we declare His rulership 
over the whole world. 

Again; God requires that we shall worship Him, and 
prayer, real prayer, is an act of worship. Prayer is an act 
of worship inasmuch as it is the prostrating of the soul be- 
fore Him, inasmuch as it is a falling upon His great and 
holy name, inasmuch as it is the owning of His goodness, 
His power, His immutability, His grace, and inasmuch as it 
is the recognition of His sovereignty, owned by a submission 
to His will. It is highly significant to notice in this connec- 
tion that the Temple was not termed by Christ the House of 
sacrifice, but instead, the House of Prayer. 

Again; prayer redounds to God’s glory, for in prayer we 
do acknowledge our dependency upon Him. When we hum- 
bly supplicate the Divine Being we cast ourselves upon His 
power and mercy. In seeking blessings from God we ac- 
knowledge that He is the Author and Fountain of every good 
and perfect gift. That prayer brings glory to God is further 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER 215 


seen from the fact that prayer calls faith into exercise, and 
nothing from us is so honoring and pleasing to Him as the 
exercise of prayer. 

In the second place, prayer is appointed by God for our 
spiritual blessing, as a means for our growth in grace. When 
seeking to learn the design of prayer, this should ever occupy 
us before we regard prayer as a means for obtaining the sup- 
ply of our need. Prayer is designed by God for our 
humbling. Prayer, real prayer, is a coming into the Pres- 
ence of God, and a sense of His awful majesty produces a 
realization of our nothingness and unworthiness. Again ; 
prayer is designed by God for the exercise of our faith. 
Faith is begotten in the Word (Rom. 10:17), but it is exer- 
cised in prayer; hence, we read of “the prayer of faith’. 
Again; prayer calls Jove into action. Concerning the hypo- 
crite the question is asked “Will he delight himself in the Al- 
mighty? Will he always call upon God?” (Job 27:10). But 
they that love the Lord cannot be long away from Him, for 
they delight in unburdening themselves to Him. Not only 
does prayer call love into action but through the direct an- 
swers vouchsafed to our prayers our love to God is in- 
creased—“I love the Lord, because He hath heard my voice 
and my supplications” (Psa. 116:1). Again; prayer is de- 
signed by God to teach us the value of the blessings we have 
sought from Him, and it causes us to rejoice the more 


when He has bestowed upon us that for which we supplicate 
Him. 

Third, prayer is appointed by God for our seeking from 
Him the things which we are in need of. But here a diffi- 
culty may present itself to those who have read carefully 
the previous chapters of this book. If God has fore-ordained, 
before the foundation of the world, everything which hap- 
pens in time, what is the use of prayer? If it is true that 
“of Him and through Him and to Him are all things’ (Rom. 


216 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


11:36), then why pray? Ere replying directly to these 
queries it should be pointed out how that there is just as 
much reason to ask, What is the use of me coming to God and 
telling Him what He already knows? Wherein is the use 
of me spreading before Him my need, seeing He is already 
acquainted with it, as there is to object, What is the use of 
praying for anything when everything has been ordained be- 
forehand by God? Prayer is not for the purpose of inform- 
ing God, as if He were ignorant, (the Saviour expressly de- 
clared “for your Father knoweth what things ye have need 
of, before ye ask Him”—Matt. 6:8), but it is to acknowledge 
He does know what we are in need of. Prayer is not ap- 
pointed for the furnishing of God with the knowledge of 
what we need, but it is designed as a confession to Him of 
the sense of our need. In this, as in everything, God’s 
thoughts are not as ours. God requires that His gifts should 
be sought for. He designs to be honored by our asking, 
just as He is to be thanked by us after He has bestowed 
His blessing. 

However, the question still returns on us, If God is the 
Predestinator of everything that comes to pass, and the Reg- 
ulator of all events, then is not prayer a profitless exercise? 
A sufficient answer to these questions is, that God bids us 
to pray—“Pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17). And again, 
“men ought always to pray” (Luke 18:1). And further. 
Scripture declares that “the prayer of faith shall save the 
sick”, and, “the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man 
availeth much” (Jas. 5:15, 16). While the Lord Jesus Christ 
—our perfect Example in all things—was pre-eminently a 
Man of Prayer. Thus, it is evident that prayer is neither 
meaningless nor valueless. But still this does not remove 
the difficulty nor answer the question with which we started 
out. What then is the relationship between God’s sovereignty 
and Christian prayer? 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER 217 


First of all we would say with emphasis that prayer is not 
intended to change God’s purpose, nor is to move Him to 
form fresh purposes. God has decreed that certain events 
shall come to pass, but He has also decreed that these events 
shall come to pass through the means He has appointed for 
their accomplishment. God has elected certain ones to 
be saved, but He has also decreed that these ones shall be 
saved through the preaching of the Gospel. The Gospel, 
then, is one of the appointed means for the working out of 
the eternal counsel of the Lord; and prayer is another. God 
has decreed the means as well as the end, and among the 
means is prayer. Even the prayers of His people are includ- 
ed in His eternal decrees. Therefore, instead of prayers be- 
ing in vain they are among the means through which God 
exercises His decrees. “If indeed all things happen by a 
blind chance, or a fatal necessity, prayers in that case could 
be of no moral efficacy, and of no use; but since they are 
regulated by the direction of Divine wisdom, prayers have 
a place in the order of events” (Haldane). 

That prayers for the execution of the very things decreed 
by God are not meaningless, is clearly taught in the Scrip- 
tures. Elijah knew that God was about to give rain, but 
that did not prevent him from at once betaking himself to 
prayer, (Jas. 5:17, 18). Daniel “understood” by the writings 
of the prophets that the captivity was to last but seventy 
years, yet when these seventy years were almost ended we 
are told that he “set his face unto the Lord God, to seek by 
prayer and supplications, with fasting and sackcloth and 
ashes” (Dan. 9:2,3). God told the prophet Jeremiah 
“For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith 
the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an 
expected end”, but instead of adding, there is, therefore, no 
need for you to supplicate Me for these things, He said, 
“Then shall ye call upon Me, and ye shall go and pray unto 


218 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


Me, and I will hearken unto you” (Jer. 29:12). Once more; 
in Ezek. 36 we read of the explicit, positive, and uncondi- 
tional promises which God has made concerning the future 
restoration of Israel, yet in verse 37 of this same chapter we 
are told “Thus saith the Lord God; / will yet for this be en- 
quired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them”! Here 
then is the design of prayer: not that God’s will may be al- 
tered but that it may be accomplished in His own good time 
and way. It is because God has promised certain things 
that we can ask for them with the full assurance of faith. It 
is God’s purpose that His will shall be brought about by His 
own appointed means, and that He may do His people good 
upon His own terms, and that is, by the ‘means’ and ‘terms’ 
of entreaty and supplication. Finally; it should be said that 
God’s will is immutable, and cannot be altered by our cry- 
ings. When the mind of God is not toward a people to do 
them good, it cannot be turned to them by the most fervent 
and importunate prayers of those who have the greatest in- 
terest in Him—‘Then said the Lord unto me, Though Moses 
and Samuel stood before Me, yet My mind could not be to- 
ward this people: cast them out of My sight, and let them 
go forth” (Jer. 15:1). The prayers of Moses to enter the 
promised land is a parallel case. 

Our views respecting prayer need to be revised and 
brought into harmony with the teaching of Scripture on the 
subject. The prevailing idea seems to be that I come to God 
and ask Him for something that I want, and that I expect 
Him to give me that which I have asked. But this is a most 
dishonoring and degrading conception. The popular belief 
reduces God to a servant, our servant, doing our bidding, 
performing our pleasure, granting our desires. No; prayer 
is a coming to God, telling Him my need, committing my 
way unto the Lord, and leaving Him to deal with it as seem- 
eth Him best. This makes my will subject to His, instead of, 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER 219 


as in the former case, seeking to bring His will into subjec- 
tion to mine. No prayer is pleasing to God unless the spirit 
actuating it is “not my will, but Thine be done’. “When God 
bestows blessings on a praying people, it is not for the sake 
of their prayers, as if He was inclined and turned by them; 
but it is for His own sake, and of His own sovereign will and 
pleasure. Should it be said, to what purpose then is prayer? 
it is answered, This is the way and means God has appointed, 
for the communication of the blessing of His goodness to 
His people. For though He has purposed, provided, and 
promised them, yet He will be sought unto, to give them, and 
it is a duty and privilege to ask. When they are blessed with 
a spirit of prayer, it forebodes well, and looks as if God in- 
tended to bestow the good things asked, which should be 
asked always with submission to the will of God, saying. 
Not my will but Thine be done” (John Gill). 

The distinction just noted above is of great practical im- 
portance for our peace of heart. Perhaps the one thing that 
exercises Christians as much as anything else is that of un- 
answered prayers. They have asked God for something: 
so far as they are able to judge, they have asked in faith 
believing they would receive that for which they had suppli- 
cated the Lord: and they have asked earnestly and re- 
peatedly, but the answer has not come. The result is that, in 
many cases, faith in the efficacy of prayer becomes weakened, 
until hope gives way to despair and the closet is altogether 
neglected. Is it not so? 

Now will it surprise our readers when we say that eve- 
ry real prayer of faith that has ever been offered to God has 
been answered? Yet we unhesitatingly affirm it. But in say- 
ing this we must refer back to our definition of prayer. 
Let us repeat it. Prayer is a coming to God, telling Him 
my need (or the need of others), committing my way un- 
to the Lord, and then leaving Him to deal with the case 


220 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


as seemeth Him best. This leaves God to answer the 
prayer in whatever way He sees fit, and often, His answer 
may be the very opposite of what would be most accep- 
table to the flesh yet, if we have really LEFT our need in 
His hands, it will be His answer nevertheless. Let us look 
at two examples. 

In John 11 we read of the sickness of Lazarus. The Lord 
“loved” him, but He was absent from Bethany. The sis- 
ters sent a messenger unto the Lord acquainting Him of 
their brother’s condition. And note particularly how their 
appeal was worded—‘“Lord, behold, he whom Thou lov- 
est is sick.” That was all. They did not ask Him to 
heal Lazarus. They did not request Him to hasten at once 
to Bethany. They simply spread their need before Him, 
committed the case into His hands, and left Him to act 
as He deemed best! And what was our Lord’s reply? Did 
He respond to their appeal and answer their mute request ? 
Certainly He did, though not, perhaps, in the way they 
had hoped. He answered by abiding “two days still in the 
same place where He was” (John 11:6) and allowing Laza- 
rus to die! But, in this instance, that was not all. Later, He 
journeyed to Bethany and raised Lazarus from the dead. 
Our purpose in referring here to this case is to illustrate the 
proper attitude for the believer to take before God in the 
hour of need. The next example will emphasise, rather, 
God’s method of responding to His needy child. 

Turn to 2 Cor. 12. The apostle Paul has been accorded 
an unheard of privilege. He has been transported into 
Paradise. His ears have listened to and his eyes have gazed 
upon that which no other mortal had heard or seen this side 
of death. The wondrous revelation was more than the 
apostle could endure. He was in danger of becoming “puffed 
up’ by his extra-ordinary experience. Therefore, a thorn in 
the flesh, the messenger of Satan, was sent to buffet him lest 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER 221 


he be exalted above measure. And the apostle spreads his 
need before the Lord ; he thrice beseeches Him that this thorn 
in the flesh should be removed. Was his prayer answered? 
Assuredly, though not in the manner he had desired. The 
“thorn” was not removed, but grace was given to bear it. 
The burden was not lifted, but strength was vouchsafed to 
carry it. 

Does someone object that it is our privilege to do more 
than spread our need before God? Are we reminded that 
God has, as it were, given us a blank cheque and invited 
us to fill it? Is it said that the promises of God are all- 
inclusive and that we may ask God for what we will? If 
so, we must call attention to the fact that it is necessary to 
compare scripture with scripture if we are to learn the full 
mind of God on any subject, and that as this is done we 
discover God has qualified the promises given to praying 
souls by saying “If we ask anything according to His will 
He heareth us” (1 John 5:14). Real prayer is communion 
with God, so that there will be common thoughts between 
His mind and ours. What is needed is for Him to fill our 
hearts with His thoughts and then His desires will become 
our desires flowing back to Him. Here then is the meeting- 
place between God’s sovereignty and Christian prayer: If 
we ask anything according to His will He heareth us, and 
if we do not so ask, He does not hear us; as saith the apostle 
James “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that 
ye might consume it upon your lusts” or desires (4:3). 

But did not the Lord Jesus tell His disciples, “Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father 
in My name, He will give it you” (John 16:23)? He did; 
but this promise does not give praying souls carte blanche. 
These words of our Lord are in perfect accord with those 
of the apostle John—“If we ask anything according to 
His will He heareth us.”’ What is it to ask in the name of 


222 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


Christ? Surely it is very much more than a prayer formula, 
the mere concluding of our supplications with the words 
“in the name of Christ.” To apply to God for anything in 
the name of Christ, it must needs be in keeping with what 
Christ is! To ask God in the name of Christ is as though 
Christ Himself were the suppliant. We can only ask God 
for what Christ would ask. To ask in the name of Christ, 
is therefore, to set aside our own wills, accepting God’s! 

Let us now amplify our definition of prayer. What is 
prayer? Prayer is not so much an act as it is an attitude— 
an attitude of dependency, dependency upon God. Prayer 
is a confession of creature weakness, yea, of helplessness. 
Prayer is the acknowledgment of our need and the spreading 
of it before God. We do not say that this is al] there is in 
prayer, it is not: but it 7s the essential, the primary element in 
prayer. We freely admit that we are quite unable to give a 
complete definition of prayer within the compass of a brief 
sentence, or in any number of words. Prayer is both an atti- 
tude and an act, a human act, and yet there is the Divine ele- 
ment in it too, and it is this which makes an exhaustive analy- 
sis impossible as well as impious to attempt. But admitting 
this, we do insist again, that prayer is fundamentally an atti- 
tude of dependency upon God. Therefore, prayer is the very 
antithesis of dictating to God. Because prayer is an attitude 
of dependency, the one who really prays is submissive, sub- 
missive to the Divine will; and submission to the Divine will 
means that we are content for the Lord to supply our need 
according to the dictates of His own sovereign pleasure. And 
hence it is that we say, every prayer that is offered to God in 
this spirit is sure of meeting with an answer or response from 
Him. 

Here then is the reply to our opening question, and the 
Scriptural solution to the seeming difficulty. Prayer is not 
the requesting of God to alter His purpose or for Him to form 


GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER 223 


a new one. Prayer is the taking of an attitude of dependency 
upon God, the spreading of our need before Him, the asking 
for those things which are in accordance with His will, and 
therefore there is nothing whatever inconsistent between 
Divine sovereignty and Christian prayer. 

In closing this chapter we would utter a word of caution to 
safeguard the reader against drawing a false conclusion from 
what has been said. We have not here sought to epitomize 
the whole teaching of Scripture on the subject of Prayer, 
nor have we even attempted to discuss in general the problem 
of prayer; instead, we have confined ourselves, more or less, 
to a consideration of the relationship between God’s Sov- 
ereignty and Christian Prayer. What we have written is in- 
tended chiefly as a protest against much of the modern teach- 
ing, which so stresses the human element in prayer, that the 
Divine side is almost entirely lost sight of. 

In Jer. 10:23 we are told “It is not in man that walketh 
to direct his steps” (cf. Prov. 16:9) ; and yet in many of his 
prayers man impiously presumes to direct the Lord as to 
His way, and as to what He ought to do: even implying that 
if only he had the direction of the affairs of the world and of 
the Church, he would soon have things very different from 
what they are. This cannot be denied: for anyone with any 
spiritual discernment at all could not fail to detect this spirit 
in many of our modern prayer meetings where the flesh holds 
sway. How slow are we all to learn the lesson that the haugh- 
ty creature needs to be brought down to his knees and hum- 
bled into the dust. And this is where the very act of prayer ts 
intended to put us. But man (in his usual perversity) turns 
the footstool into a throne, from whence he would fain direct 
the Almighty as to what He ought to do! giving the onlooker 
the impression that if God had half the compassion that those 
who pray (?) have, all would quickly be put right! Such is 
the arrogance of the old nature even in a child of God. 


224 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


Our main purpose in this chapter has been to emphasize the 
need for submitting, in prayer, our wills to God’s. But it 
must also be added, that prayer is much more than a pious 
exercise, and far otherwise than a mechanical performance. 
Prayer is, indeed, a Divinely appointed means whereby we 
may obtain from God the things we ask, providing we ask 
for those things which are in accord with His will. These 
pages will have been penned in vain unless they lead both 
writer and reader to cry with a deeper earnestness than here- 
tofore, “Lord, teach us to pray” (Luke 11:1). 


CEA TERS EN 


OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY. 


“Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in Thy sight.” 
attzitr 201 


X. OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY. 


briefly, the practical application to ourselves of the 
ges. great truth which we have pondered in its various 
ramifications in earlier pages. In chapter twelve we shall 
deal more in detail with the value of this doctrine, but here 
we would confine ourselves to a definition of what ought to 
be our attitude toward the Sovereignty of God. 

Every truth that is revealed to us in God’s Word is there 
not only for our information but also for our inspiration. 
The Bible has been given to us not to gratify an idle curiosity 
but to edify the souls of its readers. The Sovereignty of God 
is something more than an abstract principle which explains 
the rationale of the Divine government: it is designed as a 
motive for godly fear, it is made known to us for the promo- 
tion of righteous living, it is revealed in order to bring into 
subjection our rebellious hearts. A true recognition of God’s 
sovereignty humbles as nothing else does or can humble, and 
brings the heart into lowly submission before God, causing 
us to relinquish our own self-will and making us delight in 
the perception and performance of the Divine will. 

When we speak of the Sovereignty of God we mean very 
much more than the exercise of God’s governmental power, 
though, of course, that is included in the expression. As we 
have remarked in an earlier chapter, the Sovereignty of God 
'means the Godhood of God. In its fullest and deepest 
meaning the title of this book signifies the Character and 
Being of the One whose pleasure is performed and whose 
will is executed. To truly recogmze the sovereignty of God 
is, therefore, to gaze upon the Sovereign Himself. It is to 


cB. the present chapter we shall consider, somewhat 


228 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


come into the presence of the august “Majesty on High.” It 
is to have a sight of the thrice holy God in His excellent 
glory. The effects of such a sight may be learned from those 
scriptures which describe the experience of different ones 
who obtained a view of the Lord God. 

Mark the experience of Job—the one of whom the Lord 
Himself said, ‘There is none like him in the earth, a per fect 
and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth 
evil” (Job 1:8). At the close of the book which bears his 
name we are shown Job in the Divine presence, and how does 
he carry himself when brought face to face with Jehovah? 
Hear what he says: “I have heard of Thee by the hearing of 
the ear; but now mine eye seeth Thee: Wherefore I abhor 
myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:5,6). Thus, 
a sight of God, God revealed in awesome majesty, caused 
Job to abhor himself, and not only so, but to abase himself 
before the Almighty. 

Take note of Isaiah. In the sixth chapter of his prophecy 
a scene is brought before us which has few equals even in 
Scripture. The prophet beholds the Lord upon the Throne, 
a Throne, “high and lifted up.’ Above this Throne stood 
the seraphim with veiled faces crying, “Holy, holy, holy, is 
the Lord of hosts.” What is the effect of this sight upon 
the prophet? We read, “Then said I, Woe is me! for I am 
undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in 
the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen 
the King, the Lord of hosts” (Is. 6:5). A sight of the Di- 
vine King humbled Isaiah into the dust bringing him, as it 
did, to a realization of his own nothingness. 

Once more. Look at the prophet Daniel. Toward the 
close of his life this man of God beheld the Lord in theo- 
phanic manifestation. He appeared to His servant in hu- 
man form “clothed in linen” and with loins “girded with fine 
gold’’—symbolic of holiness and Divine glory. We read that, 


OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY 229 


“His body also was like the beryl, and His face as the ap- 
pearance of lightning, and His eyes as lamps of fire, and His 
arms and His feet like in color to polished brass, and the 
voice of His words like the voice of a multitude.” Daniel 
then tells the effect this vision had upon him and those who 
were with him—‘And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the 
men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great 
quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves. 
Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and 
there remained no strength in me: for my comeliness was 
turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength. Yet 
heard I the voice of His words: and when I heard the voice 
of His words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my 
face toward the ground” (Dan. 10:6-9). Once more, then, 
we are shown that to obtain a sight of the Sovereign God is 
for creature strength to wither up and result in man being 
humbled into the dust before his Maker. What then ought 
to be our attitude toward the Supreme Sovereign? We reply, 
I ONE OF GODLY FEAR. 

Why is it that, today, the masses are so utterly uncon- 
cerned about spiritual and eternal things, and that they are 
lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God? Why is it that 
even on the battlefields multitudes were so indifferent to 
their soul’s welfare? Why is it that defiance of heaven is 
becoming more open, more blatant, more daring? The an- 
swer is, Because “There is no fear of God before their eyes’’ 
(Rom. 3:18). Again; why is it that the authority of the 
Scriptures has been lowered so sadly of late? Why is it that 
even among those who profess to be the Lord’s people there 
is so little real subjection to His word, and that its precepts 
are so lightly esteemed and so readily set aside? Ah! what 
needs to be stressed to-day is that God is a God to be feared. 

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Pro. 
1:7). Happy the soul that has been awed by a view of God’s 


230 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


majesty, that has had a vision of God’s awful greatness, His 
ineffable holiness, His perfect righteousness, His irresistible 
power, His sovereign grace. Does someone say, “But it 
is only the unsaved, those outside of Christ, who need to fear 
God”’? Then the sufficient answer is that the saved, those who 
are in Christ, are admonished to work out their own salvation 
with “fear and trembling.” Time was, when it was the gener- 
al custom to speak of a believer as a “God-fearing man”— 
that such an appellation has become nearly extinct only 
serves to show whither we have drifted. 


When we speak of godly fear, of course, we do not mean a 
servile fear such as prevails among the heathen in connec- 
tion with their gods. No; we mean that spirit which Jehovah 
is pledged to bless, that spirit to which the prophet referred 
when he said, “To this man will I (the Lord). look, even to 
him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at My 
Word” (Is. 66:2). It was this the apostle had in view when 
he wrote, “Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. 
Honor the king” (1 Pet. 2:17). And nothing will foster this 
godly fear like a recognition of the sovereign Majesty of 
God. 

What ought to be our attitude toward the Sovereignty of 
God? We answer again, 


2 ONE OF IMPLICIT OBEDIENCE. 


A sight of God leads to a realization of our littleness and 
nothingness, and issues in a sense of dependency and of cast- 
ing ourselves upon God. Or, again; a view of the Divine 
Majesty promotes the spirit of godly fear and this, in turn, 
begets an obedient walk. Here then is the Divine antidote 
for the native evil of our hearts. Naturally, man is filled 
with a sense of his own importance, with his greatness and 
self-sufficiency ; in a word, with pride and rebellion. But, as 
we remarked, the great corrective is to behold the Mighty 


OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY 231 


God, for this alone will really humble him. Man will glory 
either in himself or in God. Man will live either to serve and 
please himself, or he will seek to serve and please the Lord. 
None can serve two masters. 

Irreverence begets disobedience. Said the haughty mon- 
arch of Egypt, “Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice 
to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel 
go” (Ex. 5:2). To Pharaoh the God of the Hebrews was 
merely a god, one among many, a powerless entity who 
needed not to be feared or served. How sadly mistaken he 
was and how bitterly he had to pay for his mistake he soon 
discovered, but what we are here seeking to emphasize is that 
Pharaoh’s defiant spirit was the fruit of irreverance and this 
irreverence was the consequence of his ignorance of the maj- 
esty and authority of the Divine Being. 

Now if irreverence begets disobedience, true reverence 
will produce and promote obedience. To realize that the 
Holy Scriptures are a revelation from the Most High, com- 
municating to us His mind and defining for us His will, is 
the first step toward practical godliness. To recognize that 
the Bible is God’s Word and that its precepts are the precepts 
of the Almighty will lead us to see what an awful thing it is 
to despise and ignore them. To receive the Bible as ad- 
dressed to our own souls, given to us by the Creator Himself, 
will cause us to cry with the Psalmist, “Incline my heart unto 
Thy testimonies.... Order my steps in Thy Word” (Ps. 
119 :36, 133). Once the Sovereignty of the Author of the 
Word is apprehended it will no longer be a matter of picking 
and choosing from the precepts and statutes of that Word, 
selecting those which meet with our approval, but it will be 
seen that nothing less than an unqualified and whole-hearted 
submission becomes the creature. 

What ought to be our attitude toward the Sovereignty of 
God? We answer, once more, 


232 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


3. ONE OF ENTIRE RESIGNATION. 


A true recognition of God’s Sovereignty will exclude all 
murmuring. This is self-evident, yet the thought deserves to 
be dwelt upon. It is natural to murmur against afflictions 
and losses. It is natural to complain when we are deprived of 
those things upon which we had set our hearts. We are apt 
to regard our possessions as ours unconditionally. We feel 
that when we have prosecuted our plans with prudence and 
diligence that we are entitled to success ; that when by dint of 
hard work we have accumulated a ‘competence,’ we deserve 
to keep and enjoy it; that when we are surrounded by a hap- 
py family, no power may lawfully enter the charmed circle 
and strike down a loved one; and if in any of these cases 
disappointment, bankruptcy, death, actually comes, the per- 
verted instinct of the human heart is to cry out against God. 
But in the one who, by grace, has recognised God’s sover- 
eignty, such murmuring is silenced, and instead, there is a 
bowing to the Divine will and an acknowledgment that He 
has not afflicted us as sorely as we deserve. 

A true recognition of God’s sovereignty will avow God’s 
perfect right to do with us as He wills. “The one who bows 
to the pleasure of the Almighty will acknowledge His. abso- 
lute right to do with us as seemeth Him good. If He chooses 
to send poverty, sickness, domestic bereavements, even while 
the heart is bleeding at every pore it will say, Shall not the 
Judge of all the earth do right! Often there will be a strug- 
gle, for the carnal mind remains in the believer to the end 
of his earthly pilgrimage. But though there may be a con- 
flict within his breast, nevertheless to the one who has really 
yielded himself to this blessed truth there will presently be 
heard that Voice saying, as of old it said to the turbulent 
Gennesareth, “Peace be still,” and the tempestuous flood 
within will be quieted and the subdued soul will lift a tearful 
but confident eye to heaven and say, “Thy will be done.” 


OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY 233 


A striking illustration of a soul bowing to the sovereign 
will of God is furnished by the history of Eli the high 
priest of Israel. In 1 Samuel 3 we learn how God revealed 
to the young child Samuel that He was about to slay Eli’s 
two sons for their wickedness, and on the morrow Samuel 
communicates this message to the aged priest. It is difficult 
to conceive of more appalling intelligence for the heart of a 
pious parent. The announcement that his child is going to be 
stricken down by sudden death is, under any circumstances, 
a great trial to any father, but to learn that his two sons—in 
the prime of their manhood, and utterly unprepared to die 
—were to be cut off by a Divine judgment, must have been 
overwhelming. Yet, what was the effect upon Eli when he 
learned from Samuel the tragic tidings? What reply did he 
make when he heard the awful news? “And he said, It is 
the Lord: let Him do what seemeth Him good” (1 Sam. eu: 
18). And not another word escaped him. Wonderful sub- 
mission! Sublime resignation! Lovely exemplification of 
the power of Divine grace to control the strongest affections 
of the human heart and subdue the rebellious will, bringing 
it into unrepining acquiescence to the sovereign pleasure of 
Jehovah. 

Another example, equally striking, is seen in the life of 
Job. As is well known, Job was one that feared God and 
eschewed evil. If ever there was one who might reasonably 
expect Divine providence to smile upon him—we speak as 
a man—it was Job. Yet, how fared it with him? For a time, 
the lines fell unto him in pleasant places. The Lord filled 
his quiver by giving him seven sons and three daughters. He 
prospered him in his temporal affairs until he owned great 
possessions. But of a sudden, the sun of life was hidden 
behind dark clouds. In a single day Job lost not only his 
flocks and herds, but his sons and daughters as well. News 
arrived that his cattle had been carried off by robbers, and 


234 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


his children slain by a cyclone. And how did he receive this 
intelligence ? Hearken to his sublime words: “The Lord gave, 
and the Lord hath taken away.” He bowed to the sovereign 
will of Jehovah. He traced his afflictions back to their First 
Cause. He looked behind the Sabeans who had stolen his cat- 
tle, and beyond the winds that had destroyed his children, and 
saw the hand of God. But not only did Job recognise God’s 
sovereignty, he rejoiced in it, too. To the words, “The Lord 
gave, and the Lord hath taken away,” he added, “Blessed be 
the name of the Lord” (Job 1:21). Again we say, Sweet 
submission! Sublime resignation! 

A true recognition of God’s sovereignty causes us to hold 
our every plan in abeyance to God’s will. The writer well 
recalls an incident which occurred in England some nineteen 
years ago. Queen Victoria was dead, and the date for the 
coronation of her eldest son, Edward, had been set for April 
1902. In all the announcements which were sent out, two 
little letters were omitted—D. V.—Deo Volente: God wil- 
ling. Plans were made and all arrangements completed for 
the most imposing celebrations that England had ever wit- 
nessed. Kings and emperors from all parts of the earth had 
received invitations to attend the royal ceremony. The 
king’s proclamations were printed and displayed, but, so far 
as the writer is aware, the letters D. V. were not found on a 
single one of them. A most imposing programme had been 
arranged, and the late Queen’s eldest son was to be crowned 
Edward the Seventh at Westminster Abbey at a certain hour 
on a fixed day. And then God intervened, and all man’s 
plans were frustrated. A still small voice was heard to say, 
“You have reckoned without Me,” and Prince Edward was 
stricken down with appendicitis, and his coronation post- 
poned for months! 

As remarked, a true recognition of God’s sovereignty 
causes us to hold our plans in abeyance to God’s will. It 


~~ = 


OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY 235 


makes us recognise that the Divine Potter has absolute 
power over the clay and moulds it according to His own 
imperial pleasure. It causes us to heed that admonition— 
now, alas! so generally disregarded—‘“Go to now, ye that 
say, Today or tomorrow we will go into such a city, and 
continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Where- 
as ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is 
your life? It is even a vapor, that appeareth for a little time, 
and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, I f the 
Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that” (Jas. 4:13-15). 
Yes, it is to the Lord’s will we must bow. It is for Him to 
say where I shall live—whether in America or Africa. It is 
for Him to determine under what circumstances I shall live 
—whether amid wealth or poverty, whether in health or sick- 
ness. It is for Him to say how long I shall live—whether I 
shall be cut down in youth like the flower of the field, or 
whether I shall continue for three score and ten years. To 
really learn this lesson is, by grace, to attain unto a high 
form in the school of God, and even when we think we have 
learnt it, we discover, again and again, that we have to re- 
learn it. 

We turn now to mark how this recognition of God’s Sov- 
ereignty which is expressed in godly fear, implicit obedience, 
and entire resignation, was supremely and perfectly exempli- 
fied by the Lord Jesus Christ. 


4 THE EXAMPLE OF ouR Lorp. | 

In all things the Lord Jesus has left us an example that 
we should follow His steps. But is this true in connection 
with the first point made above? Are the words “godly fear” 
ever linked with His peerless name? Remembering that 
‘godly fear’ signifies not a servile terror but rather a filial 
subjection and reverence, and remembering too that “the 
fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” would it not 


236 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


rather be strange if no mention at all was made of ‘godly 
fear’ in connection with the One who was wisdom incarnate! 
What a wonderful and precious word is that of Heb. 5 :7— 
“Who in the days of His flesh, having offered up prayers 
and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him 
that was able to save Him from death, and having been 
heard for His godly fear” (R. V.). What was it but ‘godly 
fear’ which caused the Lord Jesus to be “subject” unto Mary 
and Joseph in the days of His childhood? Was it not ‘godly 
fear’—a filial subjection to and reverence for God—that 
we see displayed, when we read, “And He came to Naza- 
reth, where He had been brought up: and, as His custom 
was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day” (Luke 
4:16)? Was it not ‘godly fear’ which caused the incarnate 
Son to say, when tempted by Satan to fall down and wor- 
ship him, “It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God 
and Him only shalt thou serve’? Was it not ‘godly fear’ 
which moved Him to say to the cleansed leper, “Go thy way, 
shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses com- 
manded” (Matt. 8:4)? But why multiply illustrations ?* 
How perfect was the obedience that the Lord Jesus of- 
fered to God the Father! And in reflecting upon this let us 
not lose sight of that wondrous grace which caused Him who 
was in the very form of God to stoop so low as to take upon 
Him the form of a Servant and thus be brought into the 
place where obedience was becoming. As the perfect Sery- 
ant He yielded complete obedience to His Father. How ab- 
solute and entire that obedience was we may learn from the 
words, He “became obedient unto death, even the death of 
the cross” (Phil. 2:8). That this was a conscious and intelli- 


*Note how Old Testament prophecy also declared that “the Spirit 
of the Lord” should “rest upon Him, the spirit of wisdom and un- 
derstanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge 
and of the fear of the Lord” (Isaiah 11:1, 2). 


OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY 237 


gent obedience is clear from His own language—“Therefore 
doth My Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I 
might take it again. No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it 
down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have 
power to take it again. This commandment have I received 
from My Father” (John 10:17, 18). 

And what shall we say of the absolute resignation of the 
Son to the Father’s will—what, but, between Them there 
was entire oneness of accord. Said He, “For I came down 
from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him 
that sent Me” (John 6:38), and how fully He substantiated 
that claim all know who have attentively followed His path 
as marked out in the Scriptures. Behold Him in Gethsem- 
ane! The bitter ‘cup,’ held in the Father’s hand, is presented 
to His view. Mark well His attitude. Learn of Him who 
was meek and lowly in heart. Remember that there is the 
Garden we see the Word become flesh—a perfect Man. His 
body is quivering at every nerve in contemplation of the phys- 
ical sufferings which await Him; His holy and sensitive 
nature is shrinking from the horrible indignities which shall 
be heaped upon Him; His heart is breaking at the awful “re- 
proach” which is before Him; His spirit is greatly troubled 
as He foresees the terrible conflict with the Power of Dark- 
ness; and above all, and supremely, His soul is filled with 
horror at the thought of being separated from God Himself— 
thus and there He pours out His soul to the Father, and with 
strong crying and tears He sheds, as it were, great drops of 
blood. And now observe and listen. Still the beating of thy 
heart and hearken to the words which fall from His blessed 
lips—“Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from Me: 
nevertheless, not My will, but Thine be done” (Luke 22:42). 
Here is submission personified. Here is resignation to the 
pleasure of a sovereign God superlatively exemplified. And 
He has left us an example that we should follow His steps. 


238 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


He who was God became man, and was tempted in all points 
like as we are—sin apart—to show us how to wear our 
creature nature. 

Above we asked, What shall we say of Christ’s absolute 
resignation to the Father’s will? We answer further, This 
—that here, as everywhere, He was unique, peerless. In all 
things He has the pre-eminence. In the Lord Jesus there 
was no rebellious will to be broken. In His heart there was 
nothing to be subdued. Was not this one reason why, in the 
language of prophecy, He said, “I am a worm, and no man” 
(Ps. 22:6)—a worm has no power of resistance! It was 
because in Him there was no resistance that He could say, 
“My meat is to do the wilkof Him that sent Me” (John 4: 
34). Yea, it was because He was in perfect accord with the 
Father in all things that He said, “I delight to do Thy will, 
O God; yea, Thy law is within My heart” (Ps. 40:8). Note 
the last clause here and behold His matchless excellency. 
God has to put His laws into our minds, and write them in 
our hearts (see Heb. 8:10) but His law was already in 
Christ’s heart ! 

What ought to be our attitude towards God’s sovereignty? 
Finally, 


5 ONE OF ADORING WORSHIP. 


It has been well said that “true worship is based upon rec- 
ognised GREATNESS, and greatness is superlatively seen 
in Sovereignty, and at no other footstool will men really 
worship” (J. B. Moody). In the presence of the Divine 
King upon His throne even the seraphim ‘veil their faces.’ 

Divine sovereignty is not the sovereignty of a tyrannical 
Despot, but the exercised pleasure of One who is infinitely 
wise and good! Because God is infinitely wise He cannot 
err, and because He is infinitely righteous He will not do 
wrong. Here then is the preciousness of this truth. The 


OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY 239 


mere fact itself that God’s will is irresistible and irreversible 
fills me with fear, but once I realise that God wills only that 
which is good, my heart is made to rejoice. 

Here then is the final answer to the question of this 
chapter—What ought to be our attitude toward the Sov- 
ereignty of God? The becoming attitude for us to take 
is that of godly fear, implicit obedience, and unreserved 
resignation and submission. But not only so: the recog- 
nition of the sovereignty of God, and the realization that 
the Sovereign Himself is my Father ought to overwhelm 
the heart and cause me to bow before Him in adoring 
worship. At all times I must say, “Even so, Father, for. 
so it seemeth good in Thy sight.” We conclude with an 
example which well illustrates our meaning. 

Some two hundred years ago the saintly Madame Guy- 
on, after ten years spent in a dungeon lying far below the 
surface of the ground, lit only by a candle at meal-times, 
wrote these words, 


“A little bird I am, 

Shut from the fields of air; 

Yet in my cage I sit and sing 

To Him who placed me there; 
Well pleased a prisoner to be, 
Because, my God, it pleases Thee. 


Nought have I else to do 

I sing the whole day long; 

And He whom most I love to please, 
Doth listen to my song; 

He caught and bound my wandering wing 
But still He bends to hear me sing. 


My cage confines me round; 

Abroad I cannot fly; 

But though my wing is closely bound, 
My heart’s at liberty. 

My prison walls cannot control 
The flight, the freedom of the soul. 


240 


THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


Ah! it is good to soar 

These bolts and bars above, 

To Him whose purpose I adore, 
Whose Providence I love; 

And in Thy mighty will to find 
The joy, the freedom of the mind.” 


CHAPTER ELEVEN 


DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS. 


“Vet ye say, The way of the Lord ts not equal. 
Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not My way equal? 
are not your ways unequal?” 
Ezekiel 18 :25. 


» Xl. DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 


(ai CONVENIENT point has been reached when we 
may now examine more definitely some of the dif- 
Jv ficulties encountered and the objections which might 
be advanced against what we have written in previous pag- 
es. The author deemed it better to reserve these for a sep- 
arate consideration rather than to deal with them as he went 
along, requiring as that would have done the breaking of the 
course of thought and destroying the strict unity of each 
chapter, or else cumbering our pages with numerous and 
lengthy footnotes. 

That there are difficulties involved in an attempt to set 
forth the truth of God’s Sovereignty is readily acknowledged. 
The hardest thing of all, perhaps, is to maintain the balance 
of truth. It is largely a matter of perspective. That God is 
sovereign is explicitly declared in Scripture: that man is a 
responsible creature is also expressly affirmed in Holy Writ. 
To define the relationship of these two truths, to fix the di- 
viding line betwixt them, to show exactly where they meet, 
to exhibit the perfect consistency of the one with the other, 
is the weightiest task of all. Many have openly declared that 
it is impossible for the finite mind to harmonize them. Oth- 
ers tell us it is not necessary or even wise to attempt it. 
But, as we have remarked in an earlier chapter, it seems to 
us more honoring to God to seek in His Word the solution 
to every problem. What is impossible to man is possible with 
God, and while we grant that the finite mind is limited in its 
reach, yet, we remember that the Scriptures are given to us 
that the man of God may be “thoroughly furnished,” and if 
we approach their study in the spirit of humility and of ex- 
pectancy then according unto our faith will it be unto us. 


244 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


As remarked above, the hardest task in this connection 
is to preserve the balance of truth while insisting on both the 
sovereignty of God and the responsibility of the creature. 
To some of our readers it may appear that in pressing the 
sovereignty of God to the lengths we have, man is reduced to 
a mere puppet. Hence, to guard against this, they would 
modify their definitions and statements relating to God’s 
sovereignty and thus seek to blunt the keen edge of what is 
so offensive to the carnal mind. Others, while refusing to 
weigh the evidence that we have adduced in support of our 
assertions, may raise objections which to their minds are suf- 
ficient to dispose of the whole subject. We would not waste 
time in the effort to refute objections made in a carping and 
contentious spirit, but we are desirous of meeting fairly the 
difficulties experienced by those who are anxious to obtain 
a fuller knowledge of the truth. Not that we deem ourselves 
able to give a satisfactory and final answer to every ques- 
tion that might be asked. Like the reader, the writer knows 
but “in part’ and sees thro’ a glass “darkly.” All that we 
can do is to examine these difficulties in the light that we 
now have in dependence upon the Spirit of God that we may 
follow on to know the Lord better. 

We propose now to retrace our steps and pursue the 
same order of thought as that followed up to this point. As 
a part of our “definition” of God’s Sovereignty we affirmed: 
“To say that God is sovereign is to declare that He is the 
Almighty, the Possessor of all power in heaven and earth, 
so that none can defeat His counsels, thwart His purpose, 
or resist His will. . . . The Sovereignty of the God of 
Scripture is absolute, irresistible, infinite.” To put it now in 
its strongest form, we insist that God does as He pleases, 
only as He pleases, always as He pleases : that whatever takes 
place in time is but the outworking of that which He decreed 
in eternity. In proof of this assertion we appeal to the fol- 


DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 245 


lowing scriptures—“But our God is in the heavens: He hath 
done whatsoever He hath pleased” (Ps. 115:3). ‘For the 
Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall dis-annul it? 
and His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?” 
(Is. 14:27). “And all the inhabitants of the earth are re- 
puted as nothing: and He doeth according to His will in 
the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: 
and none can stay His hand or say unto Him, What doest 
thour” (Dan. 4:35). “For of Him, and through Him, and 
to Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen”’ 
(Rom. 11:36). 

The above declarations are so plain and positive that any 
comments of ours upon them would simply be darkening 
counsel by words without knowledge. Such express state- 
ments as those just quoted are so sweeping and so dogmatic 
that all controversy concerning the subject of which they treat 
ought for ever to beat anend. Yet, rather than receive them 
at their face value, every device of carnal ingenuity is resort- 
ed to so as to neutralize their force. For example, it has 
been asked, If what we see in the world today is but the 
outworking of God’s eternal purpose, if God’s counsel is 
NOW being accomplished, then why did our Lord teach 
His disciples to pray, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in 
heaven’? Is it not a clear implication from these words 
that God’s will is not now being done on earth? The answer 
is very simple. The emphatic word in the above clause is 
“as.” God’s will is being done on earth today, if it is not 
then our earth is not subject to God’s rule, and if it is not 
subject to His rule then He is not, as Scripture proclaims 
Him to be, “The Lord of all the earth” (Josh. 3:13). But 
God’s will is not being done on earth as it is in heaven. How 
is God’s will “done in heaven” ?—consciously and joyfully. 
How is it “done on earth” ?—for the most part, unconscious- 
ly and sullenly. In heaven the angels perform the bidding of 


246 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


their Creator intelligently and gladly, but on earth the 
unsaved among men accomplish His will blindly and in ignor- 
ance. As we have said in earlier pages, when Judas betrayed 
the Lord Jesus and when Pilate sentenced Him to be cruci- 
fied, they had no conscious intention of fulfilling God’s de- 
sires yet, nevertheless, unknown to themselves they did do so! | 

But again. It has been objected: If everything that hap- 
pens on earth is the fulfilling of the Almighty’s pleasure, if 
God has fore-ordained—before the foundation of the world 
—everything which comes to pass in human history, then 
why do we read in Gen. 6:6, “It repented the Lord that He 
had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart” ? 
Does not this language intimate that the anti-diluvians had 
followed a course which their Maker had not marked out 
for them, and that in view of the fact they had “corrupted” 
their way upon the earth the Lord regretted that He had 
ever brought such a creature into existence? Ere drawing 
such a conclusion let us note what is involved in such an in- 
ference. If the words “It repented the Lord that He had 
made man” are regarded in an absolute sense, then God’s 
omniscience would be denied, for in such a case the course 
followed by man must have been un-foreseen by God in the 
day that He created him. Therefore it must be evident to 
every reverent soul that this language bears some other mean- 
ing. We submit that the words, “It repented the Lord” is an 
accommodation to our finite intelligence, and in saying this 
we are not seeking to escape a difficulty or cut a knot, but 
are advancing an interpretation which we shall seek to show 
is in perfect accord with the general trend of Scripture. 

The Word of God is addressed to men and therefore it 
speaks the language of men. Because we cannot rise to 
God’s level He, in grace, comes down to ours and con- ~ 
verses with us in our own speech. The apostle Paul tells us 
of how he was “caught up into Paradise and heard unspeak- 


DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 247 


able words which it is not possible (margin) to utter” (2 
Cor. 12:4). Those on earth could not understand the ver- 
nacular of heaven. The finite cannot comprehend the In- 
finite, hence the Almighty deigns to couch His revelation in 
terms we may understand. It is for this reason the Bible 
contains many anthropomorphisms—i. e., representations of 
God in the form of man. God is a Spirit, yet the Scrip- 
tures speak of Him as having eyes, ears, nostrils, breath, 
hands etc., which is surely an accommodation of terms 
brought down to the level of human comprehension. Again; 
we read in Gen. 18:20, 21, “And the Lord said, Because the 
cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin 
is very grievous, I will go down now, and see whether they 
have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is 
come up unto Me; and if not, I will know.” Now, manifest- 
ly, this is an anthropologism—God, speaking in human lan- 
guage. God knew the conditions which prevailed in Sodom, 
and His eyes had witnessed its fearful sins, yet He is pleased 
to use terms here that are taken from our own vocabulary. 
Again; in Gen. 22:12 we read, “And He (God) said, Lay 
not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto 
him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast 
not withheld thy son, thine only son, from Me.” Here again, 
God is speaking in the language of men, for He “knew” be- 
fore He tested Abram exactly how the patriarch would act. 
Once more: in the parable of the vineyard our Lord Him- 
self represents its Owner as saying, “Then said the Lord 
of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send My beloved 
Son: it may be they will reverence Him when they see Him” 
(Luke 20:13), and yet, it is certain that God knew perfectly 
well that the “husbandmen” of the vineyard—the Jews— 
would not “reverence His Son” but, instead, would “despise 
and reject” Him, as His own Word had declared! In the 
same way we understand the words in Gen. 6:6—“It re- 


248 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


pented the Lord that He had made man on the earth’— 
as an accommodation of terms to human comprehension. This 
verse does not teach that God was confronted with an un- 
foreseen contingency and therefore regretted that He had 
made man, but it expresses the abhorrence of a holy God at 
the awful wickedness and corruption into which man had 
fallen. Should there be any doubt remaining in the minds 
of our readers as to the legitimacy and soundness of our in- 
terpretation, a direct appeal to Scripture should. instantly 
and entirely remove it—“The Strength of Israel (a Divine 
title) will not lie nor repent: for He is not a man, that He 
should repent” (1 Sam. 15:29)! “Every good and perfect 
gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of 
lights, with Whom ts no variableness, neither shadow of 
turning’ (Jas. 1:17)! 

Careful attention to what we have said above will throw 
light on numerous other passages which, if we ignore their 
figurative character and fail to note that God applies to Him- 
self human modes of expression, will be obscure and per- 
plexing. Having commented at such length upon Gen. 6:6 
there will be no need to give such a detailed exposition of 
other passages which belong to the same class, yet, for the 
benefit of those of our readers who may be anxious for us 
to examine several other Scriptures, we turn to one or two 
more. 

One Scripture which we often find cited in order to over- 
throw the teaching advanced in this book is our Lord’s la- 
ment over Jerusalem: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that 
killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto 
thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, 
even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and 
ye would not!” (Matt. 23:37). The question is asked, Do 
not these words show that the Saviour acknowledged the 
defeat of His mission, that as a people the Jews resisted all 


DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 249 


His gracious overtures toward them? In replying to this 
question, it should first be pointed out that our Lord is here 
referring not so much to His own mission as He is upbraid- 
ing the Jews for having in all ages rejected His grace—this is 
clear from His reference to the “prophets.” The Old Testa- 
ment bears full witness of how graciously and patiently Je- 
hovah dealt with His people, and with what extreme ob- 
stinacy, from first to last, they refused to be “gathered” un- 
to Him, and how in the end He (temporally) abandoned 
them to follow their own devices, yet, as the same Scrip- 
tures declare, the counsel of God was not frustrated by their 
wickedness, for it had been foretold (and therefore, de- 
creed) by Him—see, for example, 1 Kings 8:33. 

Matthew 23:37 may well be compared with Isaiah 65:2 
where the Lord says, “I have spread out My hands all the 
day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that 
was not good, after their own thoughts.” But, it may be 
asked, Did God seek to do that which was in opposition to 
His own eternal purpose? In words borrowed from Calvin 
we reply, “Though to our apprehension the will of God is 
manifold and various, yet He does not in Himself will things 
at variance with each other, but astonishes our faculties with 
His various and “manifold” wisdom, according to the expres- 
sion of Paul, till we shall be enabled to understand that He 
mysteriously wills what now seems contrary to His will.” 
As a further illustration of the same principle we would re- 
fer the reader to Is. 5:1-4: ‘‘Now will I sing to my well Be- 
loved a song of my Beloved touching His vineyard. My well 
Beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: And He 
fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it 
with the choicest vine and built a tower in the midst of tt, 
and also made a winepress therein: and He looked that tt 
should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. 
And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, 


250 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


judge, I pray you, betwixt Me and My vineyard. What could 
have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done 
in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth 
grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?” Is it not plain from 
this language that God reckoned Himself to have done 
enough for Israel to warrant an expectation—speaking after 
the manner of men—of better returns? Yet, is it not equally 
evident when Jehovah says here “He looked that it should 
bring forth grapes” that He is accommodating Himself to a 
form of finite expression? And, so also when He says 
“What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I 
have not done in it?” we need to take note that in the pre- 
vious enumeration of what He had done—the “fencing” 
etc.—He refers only to external privileges, means, and op- 
portunities, which had been bestowed upon Israel, for, of 
course, He could even then have taken away from them 
their stony heart and given them a new heart, even a heart 
of flesh, as He will yet do, had He so pleased. 


In chapter one we have affirmed that God is sovereign in 
the exercise of His Jove, and in saying this we are fully 
aware that many will strongly resent the statement and that, 
furthermore, what we have now to say will probably meet 
with more criticism than anything else advanced in this 
book. Nevertheless, we must be true to our convictions 
of what we believe to be the teaching of Holy Scripture, 
and we can only ask our readers to examine diligently in the 
light of God’s Word what we here submit to their attention. 


One of the most popular beliefs of the day is that God 
loves everybody, and the very fact that it is so popular with 
all classes ought to be enough to arouse the suspicions of 
those who are subject to the Word of Truth. God’s Love 
toward all His creatures is the fundamental and favorite ten- 
et of Universalists, Unitarians, Theosophists, Christian Sci- 
entists, Spiritualists, Russellites, etc. No matter how a man 


DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 261 


may live—in open defiance of Heaven, with no concern 
whatever for his soul’s eternal interests, still less for God’s 
glory, dying, perhaps with an oath on his lips,—notwith- 
standing, God loves him, we are told. So widely has this 
dogma been proclaimed, and so comforting is it to the heart 
which is at enmity with God, we have little hope of convinc- 
ing many of their error. That God loves everybody, is, 
we may say, quite a modern belief. The writings of the 
church-fathers, the Reformers or the Puritans will (we be- 
lieve) be searched in vain for any such concept. Perhaps 
the late D. L. Moody—captivated by Drummond’s “The 
Greatest Thing in the World’—did more than anyone else 
last century to popularize this concept. It has been custom- 
ary to say God loves the sinner, though He hates his sin.” 
But that is a meaningless distinction. What is there in a 
sinner but sin? Is it not true that his “whole head is sick’ 
and his “whole heart faint” and that “from the sole of the 
foot even unto the head there is no soundness” in him? (Is. 
1:5,6). Is it true that God loves the one who is despising 
and rejecting His blessed Son? God is Light as well as 
Love, and therefore His love must be a righteous love. To 
tell the Christ-rejector that God loves him is to cauterise his 
conscience as well as to afford him a sense of security in his 
sins. The fact is that the Love of God, like Election is a 
truth for the saints only, and to present it to the enemies of 
God is to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs. 
With the exception of John 3:16, which will receive atten- 
tion below, not once in the four Gospels do we read of the 
Lord Jesus—the perfect Teacher—telling sinners that God 
loved them, and in the book of Acts which records the evan- 
gelistic labors and messages of His apostles, God’s Love is 
never referred to at all! Yet, when we come to the Epistles, 


*Rom. 5:8 is addressed to saints, and the “we” are the same ones 
as those spoken of in 8:20, 30. 


252 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


which are addressed to the saints we have a full presenta- 
tion of this precious truth—God’s love for His own. Let us 
seek to rightly divide the Word of Truth and then we shall 
not be found taking truths which are addressed to believers 
and mis-applying them to unbelievers. What sinners need 
to have brought before them is the ineffable holiness, the - 
exacting righteousness, the inflexible justice and the terrible 
wrath of God. Risking the danger of being mis-understood, 
let us say—and we wish we could say it to every evangelist 
and preacher in the country—there is far too much present- 
ing of Christ to sinners today (by those sound in the faith), 
and far too little showing sinners their need of Christ, i. e., 
their absolute ruined and lost condition, their imminent and 
awful danger of suffering the wrath to come, the fearful 
guilt resting upon them in the sight of God—to present Christ 
to those who have never been shown their need of Him, 
seems to us to be guilty of casting pearls before swine.* 
If it be true that God loves every member of the human 
family then why did our Lord tell His disciples, “He that 
hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that 
loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Fa- 
ther. . . . . If a man love Me, he will keep My words: 
and My Father will love him” (John 14:21, 23)? Why say 
“he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father” if the 
Father loves everybody? Again; we read, “Thou hatest all 
workers of iniquity’—not merely the works of iniquity. 


*Concerning the rich young ruler of whom it is said Christ “loved 
him” (Mark 10:21), we fully believe that he was one of God’s elect 
and was “saved” sometime after his interview with our Lord. Should 
it be said this is an arbitrary assumption and assertion which lacks 
anything in the Gospel record to substantiate it, we reply, It is writ- 
ten, “Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out,” and this man 
certainly did “come” to Him. Compare the case of Nicodemus. He, 
too, came to Christ, yet there is nothing in John 3 which intimates he 
was a saved man when the interview closed; nevertheless, we know 
from his later life that he was not “cast out.” 


DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 253 


“God is angry with the wicked every day.” “He that be- 
lieveth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God” 
—not “shall abide,” but even now—“abideth on him” (Ps. 
5:5; 7:11; John 3:36). Can God “love” the one on whom 
His “wrath” abides? Again; is it not evident that the words 
“The love of God which is in Christ Jesus’. (Rom. 8:39) 
mark a limitation both in the sphere and objects of His love? 
Again; is it not plain from the words “Jacob have I loved, 
but Esau have I hated” (Rom. 9:13) that God does not love 
everybody? Again; it is written, “For whom the Lord lov- 
eth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He re- 
ceiveth” (Heb. 12:6). Does not this verse teach that God’s 
love is restricted to the members of His own family? If He 
loves all men without exception then the distinction and lim- 
itation here mentioned is quite meaningless. Finally, we 
would ask, Is it conceivable that God will love the damned 
in the Lake of Fire? - Yet, if He loves them now He will do 
so then, seeing that His love knows no change—He is 
“without variableness or shadow of turning’! 

It should now be evident after what we have said above 
that John 3:16 will not bear the construction that is usually 
put upon it. The particular point which now requires our 
consideration is the meaning here of the word “world’— 
“God so loved the world.’ Are we to understand it as 
having an absolute force or a relative one? Is it to be regard- 
ed as a general or a specific term? To harmonize its mean- 
ing with all that we have said above, we must reply, relative 
and general. That this is not an arbitrary interpretation 
ought to be clear from the following considerations. First; 
our Lord was addressing a Pharisee, one who belonged to a 
class that believed God’s mercies were confined to his own 
nation. But what our Lord here taught Nicodemus was that 
henceforth God’s love would no longer be limited to the 
Tews, but would reach out to the world—i. e., to the Gentiles 


254 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


as well, to all nations. In other words ‘‘world” here has a 
geographical rather than an ethnic force. Second; there is 
nothing said in this verse about God giving His Son for the 
world: on the contrary, the very terms in which the gift of 
His Son is described clearly imply a limitation of it to those 
who “believe.” Third; we need to compare this verse with . 
other passages where “the world” is mentioned. For ex- 
ample, we read in John 6:33—“For the bread of God is He 
which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the 
world.” Now it is to be noted that this is a positive state- 
ment and that it is not a question of proffering “life to the 
world,” but that life 7s given to the world. Has then Christ 
given “life” to the entire human race? Can the term “world” 
be regarded as having an absolute force here? Again, in 
John 12:47 our Lord says, “I came not to judge the world, 
but to save the world.’ Does “the world” here signify all 
mankind? If it does, then Christ has failed to fulfill the 
purpose of His incarnation. What then are we to under- 
stand by “the world” in these passages? We answer, again, 
it is a word used in contrast with Israel. It is a general term 
which embraces the Gentiles out of which God is now taking 
a people for His name. If we attempt to analyze it, then it 
must stand as an equivalent for God’s elect who are at pres- 
ent scattered throughout the world.* They are the only 
ones that God “loves,” though, of course, as Creator, His 
tender mercies (Providences) are over all His works. All 
who are im Christ God loves, and all who are out of Christ 
He hates. Jacob and Esau are representative characters. 
Jacob was loved not because of any excellency that was to 
be found in him, for by nature he had none, but solely be- 
cause God had chosen him in Christ before the foundation 
of the world and viewed Jacob in Him. Those whom He 


*This is no novel interpretation of John 3:16, but the one uniformly 
given by the Reformers and Puritans. 


DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 255 


loves He brings to Himself: as said the prophet of old, “I 
have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lov- 
ing kindness have I drawn thee” (Jer. 31 :3). Toward His 
own elect God’s love never had a beginning and, blessed be 
His name, it will never have an ending. But God’s love for 
the non-elect, for those out of Christ and who despise and 
reject Him, is something that exists only in the imaginations 
of pious sentimentalists.* 

Coming now to chapter three—The Sovereignty of God in 
Salvation—innumerable are the questions which migiit be 
raised here. It is strange, yet it is true, that many who 
acknowledge the sovereign rule of God over material things, 
will cavil and quibble when we insist that God is also sover- 
eign in the spiritual realm. But their quarrel is with God and 
not with us. We have given Scripture in support of every- 
thing advanced in these pages, and if that will not satisfy our 
readers it is idle for us to seek to convince them. What we 
write now is designed for those who do bow to the authority 
of Holy Writ, and for their benefit we propose to examine 
several other scriptures which have purposely been held over 
for this chapter. 

In treating of the sovereignty of God the Son in salva- 
tion we have shown from Scripture that there was an express 
design in connection with His death, that His blood was 
shed with a definite end in view and that was—manward— 
to secure the salvation of all that the Father had given to 
Him. The one passage which is relied upon more than any 
other to repudiate any limitation in the design and purpose 
of His death is 1 John 2:1, 2—“If any man sin, we have an 
Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And 
He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, 
but also for the whole world.” This scripture has already 
been before us, but a further word upon it is here in place. 
It is to be particularly noted that this passage does not say 

*See Appendix III on “Kosmos,” page 3109. 


256 ; THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


that the Lord Jesus Christ made propitiation for the whole 
world, but that He is the propitiation for the whole world: 
that is to say, by virtue of His personal excellency and the 
infinite value of His cross work, God can righteously show 
mercy toward the whole world. That the Lord Jesus did not 
make propitiation for the whole world, but that He made 
propitiation for God’s elect only is clear from Heb. 2:17— 
‘Wherefore it behooved Him in all things to be made like 
unto His brethren, that He might become a merciful and 
faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make 
propitiation for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17, R. V.)— 
compare Matt. 1:21. 

That all for whom Christ died will be saved is clear from 
many considerations. In John 17:24 we find Him saying, 
“Father, J zwill—the only time He ever declared His own 
blessed will—that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, 
be with Me where I am.” That this heart longing of the 
Son of God will be realized is sure from His own words 
in John 11 :42—“Thou hearest Me always.’ Again, we are 
told “He shall see of the travail of His soul and be satis- 
fied” (Is. 53:11), and He certainly would not be “satisfied” 
if one of His own were lost. Because He is God, His pur- 
pose cannot fail: because all power in heaven and earth is 
His, His will must be accomplished. But to this it might 
be objected that we read in Mark 6:5, “And He could there 
do no mighty work.” Suppose it be said, Is not the inference 
plain that our Lord desired to do some “mighty work” here 
in Nazareth but was unable to do so, and that if He was hin- 
dered in the days when He sojourned among men, may 
He not still be hindered? In replying to this question we 
would say, first, these words do not declare that the Lord 
desired to do any mighty work at this particular place, but 
simply states “He could there do no mighty work,” words, 
which we readily acknowledge, signify that He could not do 


- 


_ 


DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 257 


any. But, in the second place, it is to be inquired, What is 
the precise force of the could not in this connection? As we 
have shown in chapter 8 the words “could not” and “can- 
not” have a dual force in Scripture, referring sometimes to 
natural inability and sometimes to moral inability. Manifestly, 
it is the latter of these meanings that the words “could not” 
bear here. Christ was not lacking in natural ability, but was 
limited by the spiritual condition of His auditors. Why was 
it that “He could there do no mighty work”? Clearly it was 
because of their unbelief, the very next verse going on to 
say, “And He marvelled because of their unbelief.” There- 
fore we say He could not because He would not. And why 
would He not? The answer is, Because to have done so 
there would be casting pearls before swine. He was in “His 
own country” (Mk. 6:1), where He ought to have been 
known and appreciated. His own peerless character, His 
sinless walk, His perfect ways, were sufficient to mark Him 
out as the Holy One of God. But they were blind to His 
glory and said, “Is not this the carpenter” (v. 3)? Such was 
their miserable estimate of Him. Hence He refused to do 
any “mighty work” before them: He scorned to perform any 
dazzling miracles in their sight, because there would have 
been no moral worth in convincing them that He was in- 
finitely inore than “the carpenter.” 

In expounding the Sovereignty of God the Spirit in Sal- 
vation we have shown that His power is irresistible, that, by 
His gracious operations upon and within them, He “com- 
pels” God’s elect to come to Christ. The Sovereignty of the 
Holy Spirit is set forth not only in John 3:8 where we are 
told “The wind bloweth where it pleaseth ...... so is every 
one that is born of the Spirit,” but is affirmed in other pass- 
ages as well. In 1 Cor. 12:11 we read, “But all these work- 
eth that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man 
severally as He will.” And again; we read in Acts 16:6, 7— 


258 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


“Now when they had gone throughout Phyrgia and the 
region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Spirit to 
preach the Word in Asia. After they were come to Mysia, 
they assayed to go in to Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered 
them not.” Thus we see how the Holy Spirit interposed 
His imperial will in opposition to the determination of the 
apostles. 

But, it is objected against the assertion that the will and 
power of the Holy Spirit are irresistible that there are two 
passages, one in the Old Testament and the other in the 
New, which appear to militate against such a conclusion. God 
said of old, “My Spirit shall not always strive with man” 
(Gen 6:3), and to the Jews Stephen declared, “Ye stiff- 
necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always 
resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which 
of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?” (Acts 
7:51,52). If then the Jews “resisted” the Holy Spirit how 
can we say His power is irresistible? The answer is found 
in Neh. 9:30—“Many years didst Thou forbear them, and 
testifiedst against them by Thy Spirit in Thy prophets: yet 
would they not give ear.” It was the external operations of 
the Spirit which Israel “resisted.” It was the Spirit speak- 
ing by and through the prophets to which they “would not 
give ear.” It was not anything which the Holy Spirit 
wrought im them that they “resisted,” but the motives pre- 
sented to them by the inspired messages of the prophets. 
Perhaps it will help the reader to catch our thought better 
if we compare Matt. 11 :20-24—“Then began He to upbraid 
the cities wherein most of His mighty works were done, 
because they repented not. Woe unto thee Chorazin!” ete. 
Our Lord here pronounces woe upon these cities for their 
failure to repent because of the “mighty works” (miracles) 
which He had done in their sight, and not because of any 
imternal operations of His grace! The same is true of Gen. 


DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 259 


6:3. By comparing 1 Pet. 3:18-20 it will be seen that it 
was by and through Noah that God’s Spirit “strove” with 
the antidiluvians. The distinction noted above was ably 
summarized by Andrew Fuller (another writer long deceased 
from whom our moderns might learn much) thus: “There 
are two kinds of influences by which God works on the 
minds of men. First, That which is common, and which is 
effected by the ordinary use of motives presented to the 
mind for consideration; Secondly, That which is special 
and supernatural. The one contains nothing mysterious, 
anymore than the influence of our words and actions on each 
other ; the other is such a mystery that we know nothing of 
it but by its effects—The former ought to be effectual; the 
latter 1s so.” ; 

The next question to be considered is: Why preach the 
Gospel to every creature? If God the Father has predestined 
only a limited number to be saved, if God the Son died to 
effect the salvation of only those given to Him by the Fa- 
ther, and if God the Spirit is seeking to quicken none save 
God’s elect, then what is the use of giving the Gospel to the 
world at large, and where is the propriety of telling sinners 
that “Whosoever believeth in Christ shall not perish but 
have everlasting life’? 

First; it is of great importance that we should be clear 
upon the nature of the Gospel itself. The Gospel is God’s 
good news concerning Christ and not concerning sinners,— 
“Paul a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, sep- 
arated unto the Gospel of God . . . . concerning His Son, 
Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 1:1,3). God would have 
proclaimed far and wide the amazing fact that His own 
blessed Son ‘‘became obedient unto death, even the death of 
the cross.” A universal testimony must be borne to the 
matchless worth of the person and work of Christ. 

Concerning the character and contents of the Gospel the 


260 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


utmost confusion prevails today. The Gospel is not an 
“offer” to be bandied around by evangelistic peddlers. The 
Gospel is a proclamation, true whether men believe it or 
not. No man is asked to believe that Christ died for him in 
particular. The Gospel, in brief, is this: Christ died for sin- 
ners, you are a sinner, believe in Christ, and you shall be 
saved. In the Gospel God simply announces the terms upon 
which men may be saved (namely, repentance and faith) 
and, indiscriminately, all are commanded to fulfill them. 

Second; God commands that the Gospel be preached to 
“every creature” because there is an infinite sufficiency in 
the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus. Because there is no 
limitation in the value of His death, there is to be no limita- 
tion in the proclamation of it. No sinner is lost for lack of a 
Saviour. Christ is ready to receive all who come to Him. 
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and it is the 
duty and privilege of every Christian to press this truth upon 
all. Election is God’s concern: ours is to heed His Word and 
beseech men to be reconciled to Him. The exercise of God’s 
Sovereignty is seen in the application of the efficacy of 
Christ’s sacrifice to whom He wills. We do not know the 
ones that God has “ordained to eternal life,’ but we do know 
that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation,to every 
one that believeth. ~ 

Third; repentance and remission of sins are to be 
preached in the name of the Lord Jesus “unto all the nations” 
(Luke 24:47) because God’s elect are “scattered abroad” 
(John 11:52) among all nations, and it is by the preaching 
and hearing of the Gospel that they are called out of the 
world. The Gospel is the means which God uses in the sav- 
ing of His own chosen ones. By nature God’s elect are chil- 
dren of wrath “even as others”; they are lost sinners need- 
ing a Saviour, and apart from Christ there is no salvation 
for them. Hence, the Gospel must be believed by them be- 


DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 261 


fore they can rejoice in the knowledge of sins forgiven. The 
Gospel is God’s winnowing fan: it separates the chaff from 
the wheat, and gathers the latter into His garner. 

Fourth; it is to be noted that God has other purposes in the 
preaching of the Gospel than the salvation of His own elect. 
The world exists for the elect’s sake, yet others have the 
benefit of it. So the Word is preached for the elect’s sake, 
yet others have the benefit of an external call. The sun 
shines, though blind men see it not. The rain falls upon 
rocky mountains and waste deserts, as well as on the fruitful 
valleys; so also, God’s suffers the Gospel to fall on the 
ears of the non-elect. The power of the Gospel is one of 
God’s agencies for holding in check the wickedness of the 
world. Many who are never saved by it are reformed, their 
lusts are bridled, and they are restrained from becoming 
worse. Moreover, the preaching of the Gospel to the non- 
elect is made an admirable test of their characters. It ex- 
hibits the inveteracy of their sin: it demonstrates that their 
hearts are at enmity against God: it justifies the declaration 
of Christ that “men loved darkness rather than light, because 
their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19). 

Finally ; it is sufficient for us to know that we are bidden 
to preach the Gospel to every creature. It is not for us to 
reason about the consistency between this and the fact that 
“few are chosen.” It is for us to obey. It is a simple matter 
to ask questions relating to the ways of God which no finite 
mind can fully fathom. We, too, might turn and remind the 
objector that our Lord declared, “Verily I say unto you, All 
sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies 
wherewith soever they shall blaspheme. But he that shall 
blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness” 
(Mark 3:28, 29), and there can be no doubt whatever but 
that certain of the Jews were guilty of this very sin (see 
Matt. 12:24 etc.), and hence their destruction was inevitable. 


262 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


Yet, notwithstanding, scarcely two months later, He con- 
manded His disciples to preach the Gospel to every creature. 
When the objector can show us the consistency of these two 
things—the fact that certain of the Jews had committed the 
sin for which there is never forgiveness and the fact that to 
them the Gospel was to be preached—we will undertake to 
furnish a more satisfactory solution than the one given above 
to the harmony between a universal proclamation of the Gos- 
pel and a limitation of its saving power to those only that God 
has predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. 

Once more, we say, it is not for us to reason about the 
Gospel; it is our business to preach it. When God ordered 
Abraham to offer up his son as a burnt-offering, he might 
have objected that this command was inconsistent with His 
promise “In /saac shall thy seed be called.” But instead of 
arguing he obeyed, and left God to harmonize His promise 
and His precept. Jeremiah might have argued that God had 
bade him do that which was altogether unreasonable when 
He said, “Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto 
them; but they will not hearken to thee ; thou shalt also call 
unto them; but they will not answer thee” (Jer. 7-29 \ a big 
instead, the prophet obeyed. Ezekiel, too, might have com- 
plained that the Lord was asking of him a hard thing. when 
He said, “Son of man, go, get thee unto the House of Israel, 
and speak with My words unto them. For thou art not sent 
to a people of a strange speech and of an hard language, but 
to the House of Israel; Not to many people of a strange 
speech and of a hard language, whose words thou cans’t not 
understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them, they would 
have hearkened unto thee. But the House of Israel will 
not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto Me; 
for all the House of Israel are impudent and hard hearted” 


(Ezek. 3 :4-7). 


DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 263 


“But, O my soul, if truth so bright 

Should dazzle and confound thy sight, 

Yet still His written Word obey, 

And wait the great decisive day.”—Watts. 


It has been well said, “The Gospel has lost none of its 
ancient power. It is, as much today as when it was first 
preached, ‘the power of God unto salvation’. It needs no 
pity, no help, and no handmaid. It can overcome all obstacles, 
and break down all barriers. No human device need be tried 
to prepare the sinner to receive it, for if God has sent it no 
power can hinder it; and if He has not sent it, no power can 
make it effectual.’ (Dr. Bullinger). 

This chapter might be extended indefinitely, but it is al- 
ready too long, so a word or two more must suffice. A num- 
ber of other questions will be dealt with in the pages yet to 
follow, and those that we fail to touch upon the reader 
must take to the Lord Himself who has said, “If any of you 
lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all liberally, 
and upbraideth not” (Jas. 1:5). 


CHAR E.R aa VV EE 


VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE. 


“All Scripture is giveh by inspiration of God, 
And is profitable for doctrine, 

For reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 
That the man of God may be perfect, 
Throughly furnished unto all good works.” 


2 Lins snie.r7, 


rary 7 _ a ie 
a2 i} 
Liat ‘ Pa ~-\r ¥ 
* ‘ : Se a 
a" ( ‘ A 
‘ j 4 
= > ~~ 
ra 
%e s. = i 
e P bd 
: ; ‘ 
: . ‘ 
a? : , 
’ i*a 
pve ‘ 
> - 
i? d é 
ram | ry . 
‘i j LF g 
tue poe : , A 4 
. , - a - 
. . 8 a ¥ f a | 
+ ¥ BCp R* . 
+ ~ 
: ' ° " ’ 
+ na! > 2 b? rhe 
H ' mo ‘ 3 
- e ‘ 
- = aa , 
: >t. 4 | F 
e? : 2c 
ts I, ‘ 
e ' . . ad i 
. ~ a 
eer 
' i 
i \ a 
ia , } 
‘ . aw ? . y 
j . ‘ ¢ * 
‘ : 
. e ee! 7 
Wiki» eee ple : 
. “i =? 
« 7 y ? . 
\ A i: 
, hr + . 4 
yi P- 4 
i ‘ << } ‘ ah, 
y ee 
¢ e°y . 
vr ¢ { : af = bi 
1 . , G 
a) ae u 7. 
} =+ty r S eae : . 5 
é oy 
4 ae 
art ay ‘ e , a } 
: tur? és:% ! 
F 3 b 
4 eet 
j * = ie 
' 7 : y x9 a 
- y rr hs 2 T. 
A : + y 
: , ; 4 Pcs ‘ 
~ t a 
A 
at ' 
4 3 
- 
at = = 
- 
, r : 1 
te : : "fh 4 . * 7. 
< ead “45 ‘i 
«4 + 7 
A . 
: “5 , 
1 7 
rr if F A > | 
4 
j : ve poe 
- ; 2 > 
= & J 
a fF 
* LL 
4 * ' Titce a 
Pa 
oe } 2 ’ 7 
¥ a - 
% Z cae 7 ' 
‘ 
* 4 
3 * > Tw 
. ae) : 
* 
- a 
4 i psy ‘ 
arty ; 4 
‘ * 
‘ ; eat: J 
' - . 
: « } f oe 
4 : a j ; 
oe a s 4 
f 4 Pa ~ 
i ‘ 
’ > A , 
‘ ‘ ‘ts. 
id < 7? t 
<A | ai : A } 
» "he 
tel 
‘ , roe ; an | 
i, = 7 
i av . 
“ z bs +? cA 1, 
a | re f we 
+ ‘ * 
s J , 1 v 
me o> IY i te P 
al ' 
F .* 
’ ¥ i ie {A nd * 
‘ i cam or ii ‘ 
a : 
- ad ‘ , 
1 y Chal ae Le <e 
‘ d a. , 
ly mr 2 
q ‘ i * j & 
‘ 4 
‘ 
ai jo ' >>> 
= ea ELT 
’ ‘ mal he a eh, ; 
' i wy whe ne Ae 
} yy i 4 ort 
ct ee ba ee) 
ae ine Ve =) ot pe Sali 


XIl. VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE. 


—_—_— 


7) LL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and 1s 
JS profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, 

sss for instruction in righteousness: that the man of 
God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good 
works” (2 Tim. 3:16,17). “Doctrine” means “teaching,” 
and it is by doctrine or teaching that the great realities of 
God and of our relation to Him—of Christ, the Spirit, sal- 
vation, grace, glory, are made known to us. It is by doctrine 
(through the power of the Spirit) that believers are nour- 
ished and edified, and where doctrine is neglected growth in 
grace and effective witnessing for Christ necessarily cease. 
How sad then that doctrine is now decried as “unpractical’’ 
when, in fact, doctrine is the very base of the practical life. 
There is an inseparable connection between belief and prac- 
tice—“s he thinketh in his heart, so is he” CP rom23e7)Thie 
relation between Divine truth and Christian character is that 
of cause to effect—“And ye shall know the truth, and the 
truth shall make you free” (John 8 :32)—free from igno- 
rance, free from prejudice, free from error, free from the 
wiles of Satan, free from the power of evil; and if the 
truth is not “known” then such freedom will not be enjoyed. 
Observe the order of mention in the passage with which we 
have opened. All Scripture is profitable first for “doctrine” ! 
The same order is observed throughout the Epistles, particu- 
larly in the great doctrinal treatises of the apostle Paul. 
Read the Epistle of “Romans” and it will be found that there 
is not a single admonition in the first five chapters. In the 
Epistle of “Ephesians” there are no exhortations till the 
fourth chapter is reached. The order is first doctrinal expo- 


268 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


sition and then admonition or exhortation for the regulation 
of the daily walk. 

The substitution of so-called “practical” preaching for the 
doctrinal exposition which it has supplanted is the root cause 
of many of the evil maladies which now afflicts the church of 
God. The reason why there is so little depth, so little intelli- 
gence, so little grasp of the fundamental verities of Christian- 
ity, is because so few believers have been established in the 
faith through hearing expounded and through their own per- 
sonal study of the doctrines of grace. While the soul is un- 
established in the doctrine of the Divine Inspiration of the 
Scriptures—their full and verbal inspiration—there can be 
no firm foundation for faith to rest upon. While the soul is 
ignorant of the doctrine of Justification there can be no real 
and intelligent assurance of its acceptance in the Beloved. 
While the soul is un-acquainted with the teaching of the 
Word upon Sanctification it is open to receive all the crudities 
and errors of the Perfectionists or “Holiness” people. While 
the soul knows not what Scripture has to say upon the doc- 
trine of the New Birth there can be no proper grasp of the 
two natures in the believer, and ignorance here inevitably 
results in loss of peace and joy. And so we might go on right 
through the list of Christian doctrine. It is ignorance of doc- 
trine that has rendered the professing church helpless to cope 
with the rising tide of infidelity. It is ignorance of doctrine 
which is mainly responsible for thousands of professing 
Christians being captivated by the numerous false isms of the 
day. It is because the time has now arrived when the bulk of 
our churches “will not endure sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3) 
that they so readily receive false doctrines. Of course it is 
true that doctrine, like anything else in Scripture, may be 
studied from a merely cold intellectual viewpoint, and thus 
approached doctrinal teaching and doctrinal study will leave 
the heart untouched and will naturally be “dry” and profit- 


VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE 269 


less. But, doctrine properly received, doctrine studied with 
an exercised heart, will ever lead into a deeper knowledge 
of God and of the unsearchable riches of Christ. 

The doctrine of God’s Sovereignty then is no mere met- 
aphysical dogma which is devoid of practical value, but is 
one that is calculated to produce a powerful effect upon 
Christian character and the daily walk. The doctrine of 
God’s Sovereignty lies at the foundation of Christian theology 
and in importance is perhaps second only to the Divine In- 
spiration of the Scriptures. It is the centre of gravity in 
the system of Christian truth—the sun around which all the 
lesser orbs are grouped. It is the golden milestone to which 
every highway of knowledge leads and from which they all 
radiate. It is the cord upon which all other doctrines are 
strung like so many pearls, holding them in place and giv- 
ing them unity. It is the plumbline by which every creed 
needs to be measured, the balance in which every human 
dogma must be weighed. It is designed as the sheet-anchor 
for our souls amid the storms of life. The doctrine of God’s 
Sovereignty is a Divine cordial to refresh our spirits. It is 
designed and adapted to mould the affections of the heart 
and to give a right direction to conduct. It produces grati- 
tude in prosperity and patience in adversity. It affords com- 
fort for the present and a sense of security respecting the 
unknown future. It is, and it does all, and much more than 
we have just said, because it ascribes to God—Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit—the glory which is His due, and places 
the creature in his proper place before Him—in the dust. 

We shall now consider the Value of this doctrine in detail. 


I. IT DEEPENS OUR VENERATION OF THE Divine CHARACTER. 

The doctrine of God’s Sovereignty as it is unfolded in 
the Scriptures affords an exalted view of the Divine per fec- 
tions. It maintains His creatorial rights. It insists that “to 


270 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, 
and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all 
things, and we by Him” (1 Cor. 8:6). It declares that His 
rights are those of the “potter” who forms and fashions the 
clay into vessels of whatever type and for whatever use He 
may please. Its testimony is, “Thou hast created all things, 
and for Thy pleasure they are and were created” (Rev. 4: 
11). It argues that none has any right to “reply” against 
God, and that the only becoming attitude for the creature to 
take is one of reverent submission before Him. 

It exhibits the inscrutableness of His wisdom. It shows 
that while God is immaculate in His holiness, He has per- 
mitted evil to enter His fair creation; that while He is the 
Possessor of all power, He has allowed the Devil to wage war 
against Him for six thousand years at least; that while 
He is the perfect embodiment of love, He gave His only be- 
gotten Son to die for sinners; that while He is the God of 
all grace, multitudes will be tormented for ever and ever in 
the Lake of Fire. High mysteries are these. Scripture does 
not deny them, but acknowledges their existence—“O the 
depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of 
God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways 
past finding out! (Rom. 11:33). 

It makes known the irreversibleness of His will. “Known 
unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world” 
(Acts 15:18). From the beginning God purposed to glorify 
Himself “in the Church by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, 
world without end” (Eph. 3:21). To this end, He created 
the world, and formed man. His all-wise plan was not de- 
feated when man fell, for in the Lamb “slain from the foun- 
dation of the world” (Rev. 13:8) we behold the Fall antici- 
pated. Nor will God’s purpose be thwarted by the wicked- 
ness of men since the Fall, as is clear from the words of the 
Psalmist, “Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee: the 


VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE 271 


remainder of wrath shalt Thou restrain” (Ps. 76:10). Be- 
cause God is the Almighty His will cannot be withstood. 
“His purposes originated in eternity, and are carried forward 
without change to eternity. They extend to all His works, 
and control all events. He ‘worketh all things after the coun- 
sel of His own will.’” (Dr. Rice). Neither man nor devil 
can successfully resist Him, therefore is it written, “The 
Lord reigneth ; let the people tremble.” (Ps. 99:1). 

It magnifies His grace. Grace is un-merited favor, and be- 
cause grace is shown to the un-deserving and Hell-deserving, 
to those who have no claim upon God, therefore is grace 
free and can be manifested toward the chief of sinners. But 
because grace is exercised toward those who are destitute of 
worthiness or merit, grace is savereign; that is to say, God 
bestows grace upon whom He pleases. Divine Sovereignty 
has ordained that some shall be cast into the Lake of Fire to 
show that all deserved such a doom. But Grace comes in 
like a drag-net and draws out from a lost humanity a people 
for God’s name, to be throughout all eternity the monu- 
ments of His inscrutable favor. Sovereign grace reveals 
God breaking down the opposition of the human heart, sub- 
duing the enmity of the carnal mind, and bringing us to love 
Him because He first loved us. 


Zz 7 IS THE SOLID FOUNDATION OF ALL TRUE RELIGION. 


This naturally follows from what we have said above un- 
der the first head. If the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty 
alone gives God His true place then it is also true that it 
alone can supply a firm base for practical religion to build 
upon. There can be no progress in Divine things until there 
is the personal recognition that God is Supreme, that He is 
to be feared and revered, that He is to be owned and served 
as Lord. We read the Scriptures in vain unless we come to 
them earnestly desiring a better knowledge of God’s will for 


272 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


us—any other motive is selfish and utterly inadequate and 
unworthy. Every prayer we send up to God is but carnal 
presumption unless it be offered “according to His will’— 
anything short of this is to ask ‘amiss,’ that we might con- 
sume upon our own lusts the thing requested. Every service 
we engage in is but a “dead work” unless it be done for the 
glory of God. Experimental religion consists mainly in the 
perception and performance of the Divine will—perform- 
ance both active and passive. We are predestinated to be 
“conformed to the image of God’s Son” whose meat it ever 
was to do the will of the One that sent Him, and the meas- 
ure in which each saint is becoming “conformed” practically, 
in his daily life, is largely determined by his response to our 
Lord’s word—“Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; 
for I am meek and lowly in heart.” 


3. IT REPUDIATES THE HERESY OF SALVATION BY WORKS. 


“There 1s a way which seemeth right unto a man; but the 
end thereof are the ways of death” (Pro. 14:12). The way 
which “‘seemeth right” and which ends in “death,” death eter- 
nal, is salvation by human effort and merit. The belief in sal- 
vation by works is one that is common to human nature. 
It may not always assume the grosser form of Popish pen- 
ances, or even of Protestant “repentance’’—i. e., sorrowing 
for sin, which is never the meaning of repentance in Scrip- 
ture—anything which gives man a place at all is but a variety 
of the same evil genus. To say, as alas! many preachers are 
saying, God is willing to do His part if you will do yours, is 
a wretched and excuseless denial of the Gospel of His grace. 
To declare that God helps those who help themselves is to 
repudiate one of the most precious truths taught in the Bi- 
ble, and in the Bible alone, namely, that God helps those who 
are unable to help themselves, who have tried again and 
again only to fail. To say that the sinner’s salvation turns 


VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE 273 


upon the action of his own will is another form of the God- 
dishonoring dogma of salvation by human efforts. In the 
final analysis, any movement of the will is a work: it is some- 
thing from me, something which I do. But the doctrine of 
God’s Sovereignty lays the axe at the root of this evil tree 
by declaring “Jt is not of him that willeth, nor of him that 
runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (Rom. 9:16). Does 
some one say, Such a doctrine will drive sinners to despair. 
The reply is, Be it so; it is just such despair the writer longs 
to see prevail. It is not until the sinner despairs of any help 
from himself that he will ever fall into the arms of sovereign 
mercy ; but if once the Holy Spirit convicts him that there is 
no help in himself, then he will recognize that he is Jost and 
will cry “God be merciful to me a sinner,’ and such a cry 
will be heard. If the author may be allowed to bear person- 
al witness, he has found during the course of his ministry 
that the sermons he has preached on human depravity, the 
sinner’s helplessness to do anything himself, and the salva- 
tion of the soul turning upon the sovereign mercy of God, 
have been those most owned and blessed in the salvation of 
the lost. We repeat, then, a sense of utter helplessness is 
the first prerequisite to any sound conversion. There is no 
salvation for any soul until it looks away from itself, looks 
to something, yea, to Someone, outside of itself. 


4. IT IS DEEPLY HUMBLING TO THE CREATURE. 


This doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God is a great 
battering-ram against human pride, and in this it is in sharp 
contrast from “the doctrine of men.” The spirit of our age 
is essentially that of boasting and glorying in the flesh. The 
achievements of man, his development and progress, his 
greatness and self-sufficiency are the shrine at which the 
world worships today. But the truth of God’s sovereignty, 
with all its corollaries, removes every ground for human 
boasting and instills the spirit of humility in its stead. It de- 


274 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


clares that salvation is of the Lord—of the Lord in its orig- 
ination, in its operation and in its consummation. It insists 
that the Lord has to apply as well as supply, that He has 
to complete as well as begin His saving work in our souls, 
that He has not only to reclaim but to maintain and sustain 
us to the end. It teaches that salvation is by grace through 
faith, and that all our works (before conversion), good as 
well as evil, count for nothing toward salvation. It tells us 
we are “born, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of 
man, but of God” (John 1:13). And all this is most humbling 
to the heart of man who wants to contribute something to the 
price of his redemption and do that which will afford ground 
for boasting and self-satisfaction. 

But if this doctrine humbles us it results in praise to God. 
If, in the light of God’s Sovereignty, we have seen our own 
worthlessness and helplessness, we shall indeed cry with the 
Psalmist “All my springs are in Thee” (Ps. 87:7). If by 
nature we were “children of wrath,” and by practice rebels 
against the Divine government and justly exposed to the 
“curse” of the Law, and if God was under no obligation to 
rescue us from the fiery indignation and yet, notwithstand- 
ing, He delivered up His well-beloved Son for us all, then 
how such grace and love will melt our hearts, how ‘the ap- 
prehension of it will cause us to say in adoring gratitude, “Not 
unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy name give glory, 
for Thy mercy, and for Thy truth’s sake” (Ps. 115:1)! How 
readily shall each of us acknowledge, “By the grace of God 
[Tam what I am”! With what wondering praise shall we 
exclaim— 


“Why was I made to hear His voice, 
And enter while there’s room, 
When thousands make a wretched choice, 
And rather starve than come? 
*Twas the same love that spread the feast, 
That sweetly forced us in; 
Else we had still refused to taste 
And perished in our sin.” 


VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE 275 


5- IT AFFORDS A SENSE OF ABSOLUTE SECURITY. 


God is infinite in power and therefore it is impossible 
to withstand His will or resist the outworking of His de- 
crees. Such a statement as that is well calculated to fill the 
sinner with alarm, but from the saint it evokes naught but 
praise. Let us add a word and see what a difference it makes 
—My God is infinite in power! then “I will not fear what 
man can do unto me.” My God is infinite in power, then 
“what time I am afraid I will trust in Him.” My God is 
infinite in power, then “I will both lay me down in peace, and 
sleep: for Thou, Lord, only makest me dwell in safety” (Ps. 
4:8). Right down the ages this has been the source of the 
saints’ confidence. Was not this the assurance of Moses 
when, in his parting words to Israel, he said—‘‘There is none 
like unto the God of Jeshurun (Israel), who rideth upon the 
heaven in Thy help, and in His excellency on the sky. The 
eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlast- 
ing arms’ (Deut. 33:26, 27). Was it not this sense of se- 
curity that caused the Psalmist, moved by the Holy Spirit, to 
write—“He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most 
High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will 
say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God: 
in Him will I trust. Surely He shall deliver thee from the 
snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. He 
shall cover thee with His feathers, and under His wings shalt 
thou trust: His truth shall be thy shield and buckler: Thou 
shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow 
that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in 
darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. 
A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy 
right hand, but it shall not come nigh thee. Because thou 
hast made the Lord, which is my refuge, even the Most High 
thy Habitation; There shall no evil befall thee (instead, all 


276 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


things will work together for good), neither shall any 
plague come nigh thy dwelling” (Ps. gr)? 

O the preciousness of this truth! Here am I, a poor, help- 
less, senseless “sheep,” yet am I secure in the hand of Christ. 
And why am I secure there? None can pluck me thence be-— 
cause the hand that holds me is that of the Son of God and 
all power in heaven and earth is His! Again; I have no 
strength of my own: the world, the flesh, and the Devil,. are 
arrayed against me, so I commit myself into the care and 
keeping of the Lord and say with the apostle, “I know 
Whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to 
keep that which I have committed unto Him against that 
day” (2 Tim. 1:12), And what is the ground of my confi- 
dence? How do I know that He is able to keep that which 
[ have committed unto Him? I know it because God is all- 
mighty, the King of kings and Lord of lords. 


6. IT SUPPLIES COMFORT IN SORROW. 


The doctrine of God’s Sovereignty is one that is full of 
consolation and imparts great peace to the Christian. The 
Sovereignty of God is a foundation that nothing can shake 
and is more firm than the heavens and earth. How blessed 
to know there is no corner of the universe that is out of His 
reach! as said the Psalmist, “Whither shall I go from Thy 
Spirit? or whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If I 
ascend up into heaven, Thou art there: if I make my bed in 
hell, behold, Thou art there. If I take the wings of the morn- 
ing, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there 
shall Thy hand lead me, and Thy right hand shall hold me. 
If I say surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night 
shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from 
Thee: but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the 
light are both alike to Thee” (Ps. 139:7-12). How blessed 
it is to know that God’s strong hand is upon every one and 


VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE 277 


every thing! How blessed to know that not a sparrow fall- 
eth to the ground without His notice! 

But our God is not only infinite in power, He is infinite 
in wisdom and goodness too. And herein is the preciousness 
of this truth. God wills only that which is good and His 
will is irreversible and irresistible! God is too wise to err 
and too loving to cause His child a needless tear. Therefore 
if God be perfect wisdom and perfect goodness how blessed 
is the assurance that everything is in His hand and moulded 
by His will according to His eternal purpose! “Behold, He 
taketh away, who can hinder Him? who will say unto Him 
what doest Thou? (Job 9:12). Yet, how comforting to 
learn that it is “He” and not the Devil who “taketh away” 
our loved ones! Ah! what peace for our poor frail hearts 
to be told that the number of our days is with Him (Job 
7:1; 14:5); that disease and death are His messengers, and 
always march under His orders; that it is the Lord who 
gives and the Lord who takes away! 


Fi IT BEGETS A SPIRIT OF SWEET RESIGNATION, 


To bow before the sovereign will of God is one of the 
great secrets of peace and happiness. There can be no real 
submission with contentment until we are broken in spirit, 
that is, until we are willing and glad for the Lord to have Alts 
way with us. Not that we are insisting upon a spirit of 
fatalistic acquiescence; far from it. The saints are exhorted 
to “prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will 
of God” (Rom. 12:2). 

We touched upon this subject of resignation to God’s will 
in the chapter upon our Attitude towards God’s Sovereignty, 
and there, in addition to the supreme Pattern, we cited the 
examples of Eli and Job: we would now supplement their 
cases with further examples. What a word is that in Lev. 
10:3—“And Aaron held his peace.” Look at the circum- 


278 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


stances: “And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took 
either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put in- 
cense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, 
which He commanded them not. And there went out fire 
from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the 
Lord... . . And Aaron held his peace.’ Two of the high 
priests’ sons were slain, slain by a visitation of Divine judg- 
ment, and they were probably intoxicated at the time; more- 
over, this trial came upon Aaron suddenly, without anything 
to prepare him for it; yet, he “held his peace.” Precious 
exemplification of the power of God’s all-sufficient grace! 

Consider now an utterance which fell from the lips of 
David: “And the king said unto Zadok, Carry back the ark 
of God into the city: if I shall find favor in the eyes of the 
Lord, He will bring me again, and shew me both it, and His 
habitation. But if He thus say, I have no delight in thee; 
behold, here am I, Jet Him do to me as seemeth good unto 
Him” (2Sam. 15:25,26). Here, too, the circumstances 
which confronted the speaker were exceedingly trying to the 
human heart. David was sore pressed with sorrow. His 
own son was driving him from the throne, and seeking his 
very life. Whether he would ever see Jerusalem and the 
Tabernacle again he knew not. But he was so yielded up to 
God, he was so fully assured that His will was best, that 
even though it meant the loss of the throne and the loss of 
his life he was content for Him to have His way—“let Him 
do to me as seemeth Him good.” 

There is no need to multiply examples, but a reflection 
upon the last case will be in place. If amid the shadows of 
the Old Testament dispensation, David was content for the 
Lord to have His way, now that the heart of God has been 
fully revealed at the Cross, how much more ought we to de- 


VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE 279 


light in the execution of His will! Surely we shall have no 
hesitation in saying— 


“Till that He blesses is our good, 

And unblest good is ill, 

And all is right that seems most wrong, 
If it be His sweet will.” 


8. IT EVOKES A SONG OF PRAISE. 


It could not be otherwise. Why should I, who am by na- 
ture no different from the indifferent and godless throngs all 
around, have been chosen in Christ before the foundation of 
the world and now blessed with all spiritual blessings in the 
heavenlies in Him! Why was I, that once was an alien and 
a rebel, singled out for such wondrous favors! Ah, that is 
something I cannot fathom. Such grace, such love, “passeth 
knowledge.’’ But if my mind is unable to discern a reason, 
my heart can express its gratitude in praise and adoration. 
But not only should I be grateful to God for His grace to- 
ward me in the past, His present dealings will fill me with 
thanksgivings. What is the force of that word “Rejoice in 
the Lord alway” (Phil. 4:4)? Mark it is not “Rejoice in the 
Saviour,” but we are to “Rejoice in the Lord,” as “Lord,” as 
the Master of every circumstance. Need we remind the read- 
er that when the apostle penned these words he was himself a 
prisoner in the hands of the Roman government. A long 
course of affliction and suffering lay behind him. Perils on 
land and perils on sea, hunger and thirst, scourging and ston- 
ing, had all been experienced. He had been persecuted by 
those within the church as well as by those without: the very 
ones who ought to have stood by him had forsaken him. And 
still he writes, “Rejoice in the Lord alway’! What was the 
secret of his peace and happiness? Ah! had not this same 
apostle written, “And we know that all things work together 
for good to them that love God, to them who are the called 
according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28). But how did he, 


280 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


and how do we, “know,” that al] things work together for 
good? The answer is, Because all things are under the con- 
trol of and are being regulated by the Supreme Sovereign, 
and because He has naught but thoughts of love toward 
His own, then “all things” are so ordered by Him that they 
are made to minister to our ultimate good. It is for this cause 
we are to give “thanks always for all things unto God and 
the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 5: 
20). Yes, give thanks for “all things” for, as it has been 
well said “Our disappointments are but His appointments.” 
To the one who delights in-the Sovereignty of God the clouds 
not only have a ‘silver lining’ but they are silvern all through, 
the darkness only serving to offset the light— 


“Ye fearful saints fresh courage take 
The clouds ye so much dread, 
Are big with mercy and shall break 
In blessings o’er your head.” 


g. IT GUARANTEES THE FINAL TRIUMPH OF GOOD OVER EVIL. 

Ever since the day that Cain slew Abel the conflict on 
earth between good and evil has been a sore problem to the 
saints. In every age the righteous have been hated and per- 
secuted, whilst the unrighteous have appeared to defy God 
with impugnity. The Lord’s people, for the most part, 
have been poor in this world’s goods, whereas the wicked in 
their temporal prosperity have flourished like the green bay 
tree. As one looks around and beholds the oppression of 
believers and the earthly success of unbelievers, and notes 
how few are the former and how numerous the latter; as 
he sees the apparent defeat of the right, and the triumphing 
of might and the wrong; as he hears the roar of battle, the 
cries of the wounded, and the lamentations of the bereaved ; 
as he discovers that almost everything down here is in con- 
fusion, chaos, and ruins, it seems as though Satan was get- 
ting the best of the conflict. But as one looks above, instead 


VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE 281 


of around, there is plainly visible to the eye of faith a Throne, 
a Throne unaffected by the storms of earth, a Throne that is 
“set,” stable and secure, and upon it is seated One whose 
name is the Almighty, and who “worketh all things after 
the counsel of His own will” (Eph. 1:11). This then is our 
confidence—God is on the Throne. The helm is in His 
hand, and being Almighty His purpose cannot fail, for “He 
is in one mind, and who can turn Him? and what His soul 
desireth, even that He doeth” (Job 23:13). Soon His abso- 
lute sovereignty will be visibly manifested to all the world, 
when His Son returns to take its government upon His shoul- 
der and rule it with a rod of iron. In the meantime, though 
God's governing hand is invisible to the eye of sense it is real 
to faith, that faith which rests with sure confidence upon His 
Word, and therefore is assured He cannot fail. What fol- 
lows below is from the pen of our brother Mr. Gaebelein. 
“There can be no failure with God. ‘God is not a man, 
that He should lie, neither the Son of man, that He should 
repent; hath He said and shall not He do it? or hath He 
spoken, and shall He not make it good?’ (Num. 23:19). All 
will be accomplished.: The promise made to His own be- 
loved people to come for them and take them from hence to 
glory will not fail. He will surely come and gather them in 
His own presence. The solemn words spoken to the nations 
of the earth by the different prophets will also not fail. 
‘Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken ye people; let 
the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all 
things that come forth of it. For the indignation of the 
Lord is upon all nations, and His fury upon all armies; He 
hath utterly destroyed them, He hath delivered them to the 
slaughter’ (Is. 34:1,2). Nor will that day fail in which 
‘the lofty looks of man shall be humbled and the haughtiness 
of men shall be bowed down and the Lord alone shall be ex- 
alted’ (Is. 2:11). The day in which He is manifested, when 


282 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


His glory shall cover the heavens and His feet will stand 
again upon this earth, will surely come. His kingdom will 
not fail, nor all the promised events connected with the end 
of the age and the consummation.” 

“In these dark and trying times how well it is to remem- 
ber that He is on the throne, the throne which cannot be 
shaken, and that He will not fail in doing all He has spoken 
and promised. ‘Seek ye out of the book of the Lord and 
read: Not one of these shall fail’ (Is. 34:16). In believing, 
blessed anticipation, we can look on to the glory-time when 
His Word and His Will is accomplished, when through the 
coming of the Prince of Peace, righteousness and peace 
comes at last. And while we wait for the supreme and 
blessed moment when His promise to us is accomplished, we 
trust Him, walking in His fellowship and daily find afresh, 
that He does not fail to sustain and keep us in all our ways.’’* 


10. IT PROVIDES A RESTING-PLACE FOR THE HEART. 


Much that might have been said here has already been 
anticipated under previous heads. The One seated upon 
the Throne of Heaven, the One who is Governor over the 
nations and who has ordained and now regulates all events, 
is infinite not only in power but in wisdom and goodness as 
well. He who is Lord over all creation is the One that was 
“manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). Ah! here is a theme 
no human pen can do justice to. The glory of God consists 
not merely in that He is Highest, but in that being high He 
stooped in lowly love to bear the burden of His own sinful 
creatures, for it is written “God was in Christ, reconciling 
the world unto Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). The Church of God 


*The above is an extract from an editorial from that most excel- 
lent magazine “Our Hope” (May 1918 issue) to which the author 
contributes an article each month. (Sample copy free from Bible 
Truth Depot, Swengel, Pa.) 


VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE 283 


was purchased “with His own Blood” (Acts 20:28). It is 
upon the gracious self-humiliation of the King Himself 
that His kingdom is established. O wondrous Cross! By it 
He who suffered upon it has become not the Lord of our 
destinies (He was that before) but the Lord of our hearts. 
Therefore, it is not in abject terror that we bow before the 
Supreme Sovereign, but in adoring worship we cry, “Worthy 
is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and 
wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing” 
Pev.25. 20 

Here then is the refutation of the wicked charge that this 
doctrine is a horrible calumny upon God and dangerous to 
expound to His people. Can a doctrine be “horrible” and 
“dangerous” that gives God His true place, that maintains 
His rights, that magnifies His grace, that ascribes all glory 
to Him and removes every ground of boasting from the 
creature? Can a doctrine be “horrible” and “dangerous” 
which affords the saints a sense of security in danger, that 
supplies them comfort in sorrow, that begets patience within 
them in adversity, that evokes from them praise at all times? 
Can a doctrine be “horrible” and “dangerous” which assures 
us of the certain triumph of good over evil, and which pro- 
vides a sure resting-place for our hearts, and that place the 
perfections of the Sovereign Himself? No; a thousand 
times, no. Instead of being “horrible and dangerous” this 
doctrine of the Sovereignty of God is glorious and edifying, 
and a due apprehension of it will but serve to make us 
exclaim with Moses, “Who ts like unto thee, O Lord, among 
the gods? who is like Thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in 
praises, doing wonders?” (Ex. 15:11). 


"2 
DA 
‘es. 


~ 


ris 


to 


/ >. P . 
a 


oe Pac: ¥; ts Tt 


. 


. 


d 


bah » J Nodne'® rn Py 
“_ ¢ uf ws bei ew Shy, 


' 
Tit 
P 


CONCLUSION. 


“Halleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.” 
Rev. 19:6. 


CONCLUSION. 


and Jerusalem, in the house of the Lord, before the 
Jak new court, And said, O Lord God of our fathers, 
art not Thou God in heaven? and rulest not Thou over 
all the kingdoms of the heathen? and in Thine hand is there 
not power and might, so that none is able to withstand 
Thee?” (2Chron. 20:5,6). Yes, the Lord is God, ruling 
over all the kingdoms of men, ruling in supreme majesty and 
might. Yet in our day, a day of boasted enlightenment and 
progress, this is denied on every hand. A materialistic science 
and an atheistic philosophy have bowed God out of His 
own world, and everything is regulated, forsooth, by (im- 
personal) laws of nature. So in human affairs: at best God 
is a far-distant spectator, and a helpless one at that. God 
could not help the launching of the dreadful war, and though 
He longed to put a stop to it He was unable to do so. Hav- 
ing endowed man with “free agency” God is obliged to let 
man make his own choice and go his own way, and He 
cannot interfere with him or otherwise his moral responsibil- 
ity would be destroyed. Such are the popular beliefs of the 
day. One is not surprised to find these sentiments emanating 
from German neologians, but how sad that they should be 
taught in many of our Seminaries, echoed from many of our 
pulpits, and accepted by many of the rank and file of profess- 
ing Christians. 

One of the most flagrant sins of our age is that of ir- 
reverence—the failure to ascribe the glory which is due the 
august majesty of God. Men limit the power and activities 
of the Lord in their degrading concepts of His being and 


EP an Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah 


288 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


character. Originally, man was made in the image and like- 
ness of God, but today we are asked to believe in a god made 
in the image and likeness of man. The Creator is reduced 
to the level of the creature: His omniscience is called into 
question, His omnipotency is no longer believed in, and His 
absolute sovereignty is flatly denied. Men claim to be the 
architects of their own fortunes and the determiners of their 
own destiny. They know not that their lives are at the dis- 
posal of the Divine Despot. They know not they have no 
more power to thwart His secret decrees than a worm has to 
resist the tread of an elephant. They know not that “The 
Lord hath prepared His throne in the heavens ; and His king- 
dom ruleth over all’ (Ps. 103:19). 

In the foregoing pages we have sought to repudiate such 
paganistic views as the above-mentioned, and have en- 
deavored to show from Scripture that God is God, on the 
Throne, and that so far from the recent war being an evi- 
dence that the helm had slipped out of His hand, it was a 
sure proof that He still lives and reigns and is now bringing 
to pass that which He had fore-determined and fore-an- 
nounced (Matt. 24:6-8 etc.). That the carnal mind is at 
enmity with God, that the un-regenerate man is a rebel 
against the Divine government, that the sinner has no con- 
cern for the glory of his Maker and little or no respect for 
His revealed will, is freely granted. But, nevertheless, be- 
hind the scenes, God is ruling and over-ruling and fulfilling 
His eternal purpose not only in spite of but also by means 
of those who are His enemies. 

How earnestly are the claims of man contended for against 
the claims of God! Has not man power and knowledge, 
but what of it?) Has God no will, or power, or knowledge ? 
Suppose man’s will conflicts with God’s—then what? Turn 
to the Scripture of Truth for answer. Men had a will on 
the plains of Shinar and determined to build a tower whose 


ra 


CONCLUSION 289 


top should reach unto heaven, but what came of their pur- 
pose? Pharaoh had a will when he hardened his heart and 
refused to allow Jehovah’s people to go and worship Him in 
the wilderness, but what came of his rebellion? Balak had a 
will when he hired Balaam to come and curse the Hebrews, 
but of what avail was it? The Canaanites had a will when 
they determined to prevent Israel occupying the land of Ca- 
naan, but how far did they succeed? Saul had a will when he 
hurled his javelin at David, but it entered the wall instead! 
Jonah had a will when he refused to go and preach to the 
Ninevites, but what came of it? Nebuchadnezzar had a will 
when he thought to destroy the three Hebrew children, but 
God had a will too, and the fire did not harm them. Herod 
had a will when he sought to slay the Child Jesus, and had 
there been no living, reigning God, his evil desire would have 
been effected, but in daring to pit his puny will against the 
irresistible will of the Almighty, his efforts came to nought. 
Yes, my reader, and you, too, had a will when you formed 
your plans without first seeking counsel of the Lord, there- 
fore did He overturn them! “There are many devices in a 
man’s heart: nevertheless the counsel of the Lord, that shall 
Stand eae Pronio21)). 

What a demonstration of the irresistible sovereignty of 
God is furnished by that wonderful statement found in Rev. 
17:17—“For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill His will, 
and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the Beast, until 
the words of God shall be fulfilled.” This is one of many 
prophecies which is to receive its fulfillment in the Great 
Tribulation, and has reference to the federation of the ten 
kings—the future League of Nations—becoming subject to 
the Anti-christ. The fulfillment of any single prophecy 1s 
but the sovereignty of God in operation. It 1s the demon- 
stration that what He has decreed He is able also to perform. 
It is proof that none can withstand the execution of His 


290 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


counsel or prevent the accomplishment of His pleasure. It 
is the evidence that God inclines men to fulfill that which He 
has ordained and perform that which He has fore-deter- 
mined. If God were not absolute Sovereign, then Divine 
prophecy would be valueless, for in such case no guarantee 
would be left that what He had predicted would surely come 
to pass. 

“For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill His will, and 
to agree, and give their kingdom unto the Beast, until the 
words of God shall be fulfilled” (Rev. 17:17). As remarked, 
these words have reference to conditions that will obtain 
during the Tribulation period, after the Church and the 
Holy Spirit have left the earth. Even in that terrible time, 
when Satan has been cast down to the earth itself (Rev. 12: 
9), when the Anti-christ is reigning in full power (Rev. 
13), when the basest passions of men are let loose (Rev. 6: 
4), even then God is Supreme above all, working “through 
ull” (Eph. 4:6), controlling men’s hearts and directing their 
counsels to the fulfilling of His own purpose. We cannot do 
better than quote here the excellent comments of our 
esteemed friend Mr. Walter Scott upon this verse—“God 
works tinseen, but not the less truly, in all the political 
changes of the day. The astute statesman, the clever di- 
plomatist, is simply an agent in the Lord’s hands. He knows 
it not. Self-will and motives of policy may influence to ac- 
tion, but God is steadily working toward an end—to exhibit 
the heavenly and earthly glories of His Son. Thus, instead 
of kings and statesmen thwarting God’s purpose, they un- 
consciously forward it. God is not indifferent, but is behind 
the scenes of human action. The doings of the future ten 
kings in relation to Babylon and the Beast—the ecclesiastical 
and secular powers—are not only under the direct control of 


CONCLUSION 291 


God, but all is done in fulfillment of His words” (‘“Exposi- 
tion of the Revelation’’ ).* 

Closely connected with Rev. 17:17 is that which is brought 
before us in Micah 4:11, 12—“Now also many nations are 
gathered against thee, that say, Let her be defiled, and let 
our eye look upon Zion. But they know not the thoughts of 
the Lord, neither understand they His counsel: for He shall 
gather them as the sheaves into the floor.’ This is another 
remarkable statement—inspired of God—and three things 
in it deserve special notice. First, a day is coming when 
“many nations” shall “gather against” Israel with the ex- 
press purpose of humiliating her. Second, quite unconscious- 
ly to themselves—for they “understand not” His counsel— 
they are “gathered” together by God, for “He shall gather 
them.” Third, God gathers these “many nations” against 
Israel in order that the daughter of Zion may “beat them 
in pieces” (v. 13). Here then is another instance which 
demonstrates God’s absolute control of the nations, of His 
power to fulfill His secret counsel or decrees through and by 
them, and of His inclining men to perform His pleasure 
though it be performed blindly and unwittingly. 

Once more. What a word was that of the Lord Jesus 
as He stood before Pilate! Who can depict the scene! 
There was the Roman official, and there also was the Serv- 
ant of Jehovah standing before him. Said Pilate, “Whence 
art Thou?’ And we read, “Jesus gave him no answer.” 
Then said Pilate unto Him, “Speakest Thou not unto me? 
Knowest Thou not that I have power to crucify Thee, and 
have power to release Thee?’ (John 19:10). Ah! that is 
what Pilate thought. That is what many another has thought. 
He was merely voicing the common conviction of the human 
heart—the heart which leaves God out of its reckoning. But 


*“Fixposition of Revelation” by Walter Scott. Price $2.25. Bible 
Truth Depot, Swengel, Pa. . 


292 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


hear the Lord Jesus as He corrects Pilate, and at the same 
time repudiates the proud boasting of men in general— 
“thou couldest have no power against Me, except it were 
given thee from above” (John 19:11). How sweeping is 
this assertion! Man—even though he be a prominent of- 
ficial in the most influential empire of his day—has no 
power except that which is given him from above, no power, 
even, to do that which is evil, i.e., carry out his own evil de- 
signs, unless God empowers him so that His purpose may 
be forwarded. It was God who gave Pilate the power to 
sentence to death His well-beloved Son! And how this re- 
bukes the sophistries and reasonings of men who argue that 
God does nothing more than permit evil! Why, go right 
back to the very first words spoken by the Lord God to man 
after the Fall, and hear Him saying, “TJ will put ENMITY 
between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her 
seed” (Gen. 3:15)! Bare permission of sin does not cover 
all the facts which are revealed in Scripture touching this 
mystery. As Calvin succinctly remarked “But what reason 
shall we assign for His permitting it but because it is His 
will?” 

At the close of chapter eleven we promised to give atten- 
tion to one or two other Difficulties which were not exam- 
ined at that time. To them we now turn. If God has 
not only pre-determined the salvation of His own, but has 
also fore-ordained the good works which they are to walk 
in (Eph. 2:10), then what incentive remains for us to 
strive after practical godliness? If God has fixed the num- 
ber of those who are to be saved, and the others are vessels 
of wrath fitted to destruction, then what encouragement have 
we to preach the Gospel to the lest? Let us take up these 
three questions in the order of mention. 


CONCLUSION 2938 


1. Gop’s SOVEREIGNTY AND THE BELIEVER’S GROWTH IN 
GRACE. | 


If God has fore-ordained everything that comes to pass 
of what avail is it for ws to “exercise” ourselves “unto god- 
liness” (1 Tim. 477)? If God has before ordained the good 
works in which we are to walk (Eph. 2:10), then why should 
we be “careful to maintain good works” (Titus 3:8)? This 
only raises once more the problem of human responsibility. 
Really, it should be enough for us to reply, God has bidden 
us do so. Nowhere does Scripture inculcate or encourage a 
spirit of fatalistic indifference. Contentment with our pres- 
ent attainments is expressly dis-allowed. The word to every 
believer is, “Press toward the mark for the prize of the high 
calling of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:14). This was the 
apostle’s aim, and it should be ours. Instead of hindering 
the development of Christian character, a proper apprehen- 
sion and appreciation of God’s sovereignty will forward it. 
Just as the sinner’s despair of any help from himself is the 
first prerequisite of a sound conversion, so the loss of all con- 
fidence in himself is the first essential in the believer’s growth 
in grace; and just as the sinner despairing of help from him- 
self will cast him into the arms of sovereign mercy, so the 
Christian, conscious of his own frailty, will turn unto the 
Lord for power. It is when we are weak, we are strong (2 
Cor. 12:10): that is to say, there must be consciousness of 
our weakness before we shall turn to the Lord for help. 
While the Christian allows the thought that he is sufficient in 
himself, while he imagines that by mere’ force of will he 
shall resist temptation, while he has any confidence in the 
flesh then, like. Peter who boasted that though all forsook the 
Lord yet should not he, so we shall certainly fail and fall. 
Apart from Christ we can do nothing (John 15:5). The 
promise of God is, “He giveth power to the faint; and to 


294 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


them that have no might (of their own) He increaseth 
strength” (Is. 40:29). 

The question now before us is of great practical im- 
portance, and we are deeply anxious to express ourselves 
clearly and simply. The secret of development of Christian 
character is the realization of our own powerlessness, ac- 
knowledged powerlessness, and the consequent turning unto 
the Lord for help. The plain fact is that of ourselves we 
are utterly unable to practice a single precept or obey a 
single command that is set before us in the Scriptures. For. 
example: “Love your enemies’—but of ourselves we cannot 
do this, or make ourselves do it. “In nothing be anxious” 
—but who can avoid and prevent anxiety when things go 
wrong? “Awake to righteousness and sin not”—but who 
can help sinning? These are merely examples selected at 
random from scores of others. Does then God mock us by 
bidding us do what He knows we are unable to do? The 
answer of Augustine to this question is the best we have 
met with—“God gives commands we cannot perform, that 
we may know what we ought to request from Him.” A con- 
sciousness of our powerlessness should cast us upon Him who 
has all power. Here then is where a vision and view of 
God’s Sovereignty helps, for it reveals His sufficiency and 
shows us our insufficiency. 


2. Gop’s SOVEREIGNTY AND CHRISTIAN SERVICE. 


If God has determined before the foundation of the world 
the precise number of those who shall be saved, then why 
should we concern ourselves about the eternal destiny of 
those with whom we come into contact? What place is left 
for geal in Christian service? Will not the doctrine of 
God’s sovereignty, and its corollary of predestination, dis- 
courage the Lord’s servants from faithfulness in evangelism? 
No; instead of discouraging His servants, a recognition of 


CONCLUSION 295 


God’s sovereignty is most encouraging to them. Here is one, 
for example, who is called upon to do the work of an evan- 
gelist, and he goes forth believing in the freedom of the 
will and in the sinner’s own ability to come to Christ. He 
preaches the Gospel as faithfully and zealously as he knows 
how ; but, he finds the vast majority of his hearers are utter- 
ly indifferent and have no heart at all for Christ. He dis- 
covers that men are, for the most part, thoroughly wrapt up 
in the things of the world, and that few have any concern 
about the world to come. He beseeches men to be reconciled 
to God and pleads with them over their soul’s salvation. 
But it is of no avail. He becomes thoroughly disheartened, 
and asks himself, What is the use of it all? Shall he quit, or 
had he better change his mission and message? If men will 
not respond to the Gospel, had he not better engage in that 
which is more popular and acceptable to the world? Why 
not occupy himself with humanitarian efforts, with social 
uplift work, with the purity campaign? Alas! that so many 
men who once preached the Gospel are now engaged in 
these activities instead. 

What then is God’s corrective for His discouraged serv- 
ant? First, he needs to learn from Scripture that God is not 
now seeking to convert the world, but that in this Age He 
is “taking out of the Gentiles” a people for His name (Acts 
15:14). What then is God’s corrective for His discouraged 
servant? ‘This—a proper apprehension of God’s plan for 
this Dispensation. Again; what is God’s remedy for dejec- 
tion at apparent failure in our labors? This—the assurance 
that God’s purpose cannot fail, that God’s plans cannot mis- 
carry, that God’s will must be done. Our labors are not in- 
tended to bring about that which God has not decreed. Once 
more: what is God’s word of cheer for the one who is thor- 
oughly disheartened at the lack of response to his appeals 
and the absence of fruit for his labors? This—that we are 


296 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


not responsible for results: that is God’s side, and God's busi- 
ness.* Paul may “plant,” and Apollos may “water,” but it is 
God who “gave the increase” (1 Cor. 3:6). Our business is 
to obey Christ and preach the Gospel to every creature, to 
emphasise the “Whosoever,” and then to leave the sovereign 
operations of the Holy Spirit to apply the Word in quicken- 
ing power to whom He wills, resting on the sure promise of 
Jehovah—‘For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from 
heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, 
and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to 
the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall My Word be that 
goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me 
void, but it shall accomplish that which I please (1t may not 
that which we please), and it shall prosper in the thing where- 
to I sent it” (Is. 55:10, 11). Was it not this assurance that 
sustained the beloved apostle when he declared ‘Therefore 
(see context) I endure all things for the elect’s sake” (2 
Tim. 2:10)! Yea, is not this same lesson to be learned from 
the blessed example of the Lord Jesus!) When we read that 
He said to the people “Ye also have seen Me, and believe 
not,’ He fell back upon the sovereign pleasure of the One 
who sent Him, saying “All that the Father giveth Me shall 
come to Me, and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise 
cast out” (John 6:36, 37). He knew that His labor would 
not be in vain. He knew God’s Word would not return unto 
Him “void.” He knew that “God’s elect’? would come to 
Him and believe on Him. And this same assurance fills the 
soul of every servant who intelligently rests upon the blessed 
truth of God’s Sovereignty. 

It now remains for us to offer a few closing reflections and 
our happy task is finished. 

God’s sovereign election of certain ones to salvation is a 
MERCIFUL provision. The sufficient answer to all the 
wicked accusations that the doctrine of Predestination is 


CONCLUSION 297 


cruel, horrible, and unjust, is that, unless God had chosen 
certain ones to salvation none would have been saved, for 
“there is none that seeketh after God” (Rom. 3:11). This 
is no mere inference of ours but the definite teaching of Holy 
Scripture. Attend closely to the words of the apostle in 
Romans 9, where this theme is fully discussed—“Though the 
number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, 
a remnant shall be saved. . . . And as Isaiah said before, 
Except the Lord of hosts had left us a seed, we had been as 
Sodom, and been made like unto Gomorrah” (Rom. 9:27, 
29). The teaching of this passage is unmistakable: but for 
Divine interference, Israel would have become as Sodom and 
Gomorrah. Had God left Israel alone, human depravity 
would have run its course to its own tragic end. But God 
left Israel a “remnant” or “seed.” Of old the cities of the 
plain had been obliterated for their sin, and none was left 
to survive them; and so it would have been in Israel’s case 
had not God “left” or spared a remnant. Thus it is with the 
human race: but for God’s sovereign grace in sparing a rem- 
nant, all of Adam’s descendants had perished in their sins. 
Therefore, we say that God’s sovereign. election of certain 
ones to salvation is a merciful provision. And, be it noted, 
in choosing the ones He did, God did no injustice to the oth- 
ers who were passed by, for none had any right to salvation. 
Salvation is by grace, and the evercise of grace is a matter 
of pure sovereignty—God might save all or none, many or 
few, one or ten thousand, just as He saw best. Should it be 
replied, But surely it were “best” to save all. The answer 
would be: We are not capable of judging. We might have 
thought it “best” never to have created Satan, never to have 
allowed sin to enter the world, or having entered to have 
brought the conflict between good and evil to an end long be- 
fore now. Ah! God’s ways are not ours, and His ways are 
“past finding out.” = a 


298 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


God fore-ordains everything which comes to pass. His 
sovereign rule extends throughout the entire Universe and 
is over every creature. “For of Him, and through Him, and 
to Him, are all things’ (Rom. 11:36). God initiates all 
things, regulates all things, and all things are working unto 
His eternal glory. “There is but one God, the Father, of 
whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus 
Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him” (1 Cor. 8: 
6). And again, “According to the purpose of Him who 
worketh all things after the counsel of His own will’ (Eph. 
1:11). Surely if anything could be ascribed to chance it is 
the drawing of lots, and yet the Word of God expressly. 
declares, “The lot is cast into the Jap; but the whole dispos- 
ing thereof is of the Lord” (Pro. 16:33) !! 

God’s wisdom in the government of our world shall yet 
be completely vindicated before all created tntelligences. 
God is no idle Spectator, looking on from a distant world at 
the happenings on our earth, but is Himself shaping every- 
thing to the ultimate promotion of His own glory. Even 
now He is working out His eternal purpose, not only in spite 
of human and Satanic opposition, but by means of them. 
How wicked and futile have been all efforts to resist His will 
shall one day be as fully evident as when of old He over- 
threw the rebellious Pharaoh and his hosts at the Red Sea. 

It has been well said, “The end and object of all is the 
glory of God. It is perfectly, divinely true, that ‘God hath 
ordained for His own glory whatsoever comes to pass.’ In 
order to guard this from all possibility of mistake, we have 
only to remember who is this God, and what the glory that 
He seeks. It is He who is the God and Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ,—of Him in whom divine love came seeking 
not her own, among us as “One that serveth.’ It is He who, 
sufficient in Himself, can receive no real accession of glory 
from His creatures, but from whom—‘Love’, as He is 


CONCLUSION 299 


‘Light, —cometh down every good and every perfect gift, in 
whom is no variableness nor shadow of turning. Of His 
own alone can His creatures give to Him.” 

“The glory of such an one is found in the display of His 
own goodness, righteousness, holiness, truth; in manifest- 
ing Himself as in Christ He has manifested Himself and 
will forever. The glory of this God is what of necessity 
all things niust serve—adversaries and evil as well as all else. 
He has ordained it; His power will insure it; and when all 
apparent clouds and obstructions are removed, then shall He 
rest—'rest in His love’ forever, although eternity only will 
suffice for the apprehension of the revelation. ‘God shall be 
all in all’ (italics ours throughout this paragraph) gives in 
six words the ineffable result” (F. W. Grant on “Atone- 
melita). 

That what we have written gives but an incomplete and 
imperfect presentation of this most important subject we 
must sorrowfully confess. Nevertheless, if it results in a 
clearer apprehension of the majesty of God and His sov- 
ereign mercy we shall be amply repaid for our labors. If 
the reader has received blessing from the perusal of these 
pages, let him not fail to return thanks to the Giver of every 
good and perfect gift, ascribing all praise to His inimitable 
and sovereign grace. 


“The Lord, our God, is clothed with might, 
The winds and waves obey His will; 
He speaks, and in the shining height 
The sun and rolling worlds stand still. 
Rebel ye waves, and o’er the land 
With threatening aspect foam and roar, 
The Lord hath spoken His command 
That breaks your rage upon the shore. 
Ye winds of night, your force combine— 
Without His holy high behest 
You shall not in a mountain pine 
Disturb the little swallow’s nest. 

His voice sublime is heard afar; 


300 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


In distant peals it fades and dies; 

He binds the cyclone to His car 

And sweeps the howling murky skies. 
Great God! how infinite art Thou, 
What weak and worthless worms are we, 
Let all the race of creatures bow 

And seek salvation now from Thee. 
Eternity, with all its years 

Stands ever-present to Thy view, 

To Thee there’s nothing old appears 
Great God! There can be nothing new. 
Our lives through varied scenes are drawn, 
And vexed with mean and trifling cares; 
While Thine eternal thought moves on 
Thy fixed and undisturbed affairs.” 


“Halleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth” Rev. 19:6. 


AEN DEX oT 


THE WILL OF GOD. 


. 
= 4 
} 
« 
oe 
} 
7 
_\ 
5 
Lo | 
44 
o —s 
‘ 
i 
+ 
. 
zy 
' 
i 
A 
a 
5 
+ 
| 
\ 
t 
7% 
* 
, 
u 
: 
a 
7 
' 
ts) 


/ 
a 
Y: j 
45 5 
? h 7 j 
— } 5 
+i 
oe? h 
fd ae ‘ 
fale} be 7 
ats a 
< by 
i r 
. eee rf 
es ot 
s 
ve OP é 


, & 

vn eS 

. oe 
‘s<8i fag A * 


THE WILL OF GOD. 


4 14 differentiated between His decretive will and His per- 
zee, missive will, insisting that there are certain things 
which God has positively fore-ordained, but other things 
which He merely suffers to exist or happen. But such a 
distinction is really no distinction at all, inasmuch as God 
only permits that which is according to His will. No such 
distinction would have been invented had these theologians 
discerned that God could have decreed the existence and 
activities of sin without Himself being the Author of sin. 
Personally, we much prefer to adopt the distinction made 
by the older Calvinists between God’s secret and revealed 
will, or, to state it in another way, His disposing and His 
preceptive will. 

God’s revealed will is made known in His Word, but His 
secret will is His own hidden counsels. God’s revealed will 
is the definer of our duty and the standard of our responsi- 
bility. The primary and basic reason why I should follow 
a certain course or do a certain thing is because it is God’s 
will that I should, His will being clearly defined for me in 
His Word. That I should not follow a certain course, that 
I must refrain from doing certain things, is because they are 
contrary to God’s revealed will. But suppose I disobey God’s 
Word, then do I not cross His will? And if so, how can it 
still be true that God’s will is always done and His counsel 
accomplished at all times? Such questions should make evi- 
dent the necessity for the distinction here advocated. God’s 
revealed willis frequently crost, but His secret will is never 
thwarted. That it is legitimate for us to make such a dis- 


oh treating of the Will of God some theologians have 


304 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF .GOD 


tinction concerning God’s will is clear from Scripture. Take 
these two passages: “For this is the will of God, even your 
sanctification” (1 Thess. 4:3); “For who hath resisted His 
will?” (Rom. 9:19). Would any thoughtful reader declare 
that God’s ‘“‘will” has precisely the same meaning in both of 
these passages? We surely hope not. The first passage re- 
fers to God’s revealed will, the latter to His secret will. The 
first passage concerns our duty, the latter declares that 
God’s secret purpose is immutable and must come to pass 
notwithstanding the creature’s insubordination. God’s re- 
vealed will is never done perfectly or fully by any of us, but 
His secret will never fails in accomplishment even in the 
minutest particular. His secret will mainly concerns future 
events ; His revealed will, our present duty : the one has to do 
with His irresistible purpose, the other with His manifested 
pleasure: the one is wrought upon us and accomplished 
through us, the other is to be done by us. 

The secret will of God is His eternal, unchanging purpose 
concerning all things which He hath made, to be brought 
about by certain means to their appointed ends: of this God 
expressly declares ‘“My counsel shall stand, and I will do all 
My pleasure” (Isa. 46:10). This is the absolute, efficacious 
will of God, always effected, always fulfilled. The revealed 
will of God contains not His purpose and decree but our 
duty,—not what He will do according to His eternal coun- 
sel, but what we should do if we would please Him, and this 
is expressed in the precepts and promises of His Word. 
Whatever God has determined within Himself, whether to 
do Himself, or to do by others, or to suffer to be done, whilst 
it is in His own breast, and is not made known by any event 
in providence, or by precept, or by prophecy, is His secret 
will. Such are the deep things of God, the thoughts of 
His heart, the counsels of His mind, which are impenetrable 
to all creatures. But when these are made known they be- 


THE WILL OF GOD 305 


come His revealed will: such is almost the whole of the 
book of Revelation, wherein God has made known to us 
“things which must shortly come to pass” (Rev. I :1—‘‘must”’ 
because He has eternally purposed that they should). 

It has been objected by Arminian theologians that the di- 
vision of God’s will into secret and revealed is untenable, 
because it makes God to have two different wills, the one op- 
posed to the other. But this is a mistake due to the failure 
to see that the secret and revealed will of God respect entirely 
different objects. If God should require and forbid the 
same thing, or if He should decree the same thing should and 
should not exist, then would His secret and revealed will be 
contradictory and purposeless. If those who object to the 
secret and revealed will of God being inconsistent would only 
_ make the same distinction in this case that they do in many 
other cases, the seeming inconsistency would at once disap- 
pear. How often do men draw a sharp distinction between 
what is desirable in its own nature and what is not desirable 
all things considered. For example, the fond parent does not 
desire simply considered to punish his offending child, but, 
all things considered, he knows it is His bounden duty, and 
so corrects his child. And though he tells his child he does 
not desire to punish him, but that he is satisfied it is for the 
best all things considered to do so, then an intelligent child 
would see no inconsistency in what his father says and does. 
Just so the All-wise Creator may consistently decree to 
bring to pass things which He hates, forbids and condemns. 
God chooses that some things shall exist which He thorough- 
ly hates (in their intrinsic nature), and He also chooses that 
some things shall not yet exist which He perfectly loves 
(in their intrinsic nature). For example: He commanded 
that Pharaoh should let His people go, because that was right 
in the nature of things, yet, He had secretly declared that 
Pharaoh should not let His people go, not because it was 


306 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


right in Pharaoh to refuse, but because it was best all things 
considered that he should not let them go—i. e. best because 
it subserved God’s larger purpose. 

Again; God commands us to be perfectly holy in this 
life (Matt. 5:48), because this is right in the nature of 
things, but He has decreed that no man shall be perfectly 
holy in this life, because this is best all things considered that 
none shall be perfectly holy (experimentally) before they 
leave this world. Holiness is one thing, the taking place of 
holiness is another; so, sin is one thing, the taking place of 
sin is another. When God requires holiness His preceptive 
or revealed will respects the nature or moral excellence of 
holiness; but when He decrees that holiness shail not take 
place (fully and perfectly) His secret or decretive will re- 
spects only the event of it not taking place. So, again, 
when He forbids sin, His preceptive or revealed will respects 
only the nature or moral evil of sin; but when He decrees 
that sin shall take place, His secret will respects only its 
actual occurrence to serve His good purpose. Thus the 
secret and revealed will of God respect entirely different 
objects. 

God’s will of decree is not His will in the same sense as 
His will of command is. Therefore, there is no difficulty in 
supposing that one may be contrary to the other. His will, 
in both senses, is His inclination. Everything that concerns 
His revealed will is perfectly agreeable to His nature, as 
when He commands love, obedience, and service from His 
creatures. But that which concerns His secret will has in 
view His ultimate end, that to which all things are now work- 
ing. Thus, He decreed the entrance of sin into His universe, 
though His own holy nature hates all sin with infinite ab- 
horrence, yet, because it is one of the means by which His 
appointed end is to be reached He suffered it to enter. God’s 
revealed will is the measure of our responsibility and the 


THE WILL OF GOD 307 


determiner of our duty. With God’s secret will we have noth- 
ing to do: that is His concern. But, God knowing that we 
should fail to perfectly do His revealed will ordered His eter- 
nal counsels. accordingly, and these eternal counsels, which 
make up His secret will, though unknown to us are, though 
unconsciously, fulfilled in and through us. 

Whether the reader is prepared to accept the above dis- 
tinction in the will of God or not he must acknowledge that 
the commands of Scripture declare God’s revealed will, and 
he must also allow that sometimes God wills not to hinder a 
breach of those commands, because He does not as a fact so 
hinder it. God wills to permit sin as is evident, for He does 
permit it. Surely none will say that God Himself does what 
He does not wll to do. 


i. 


+ 
. 
« 
“ 
~ 
D 
14 


. 
‘ 
oe 
, . 
‘ 
4 
' 
; 
‘ 


> 


eC eee ae 


~ 


©; 
+ 


J 2 


= “Y ie Se 
* . 4 i, * 
* “ 
k 
. 
, Ls 
’ ‘ Y - 
» ‘ ¥ 
: 
4 a 
$ 
oe. 
% ‘oy y 
«* A ry <> 
= * ‘<= 
7 7 ‘ “ty 
+e Fa ~—_ sag 
5.4% A : 
‘ Lee cee Pat 
Ax": ral (ie 
ay “ ; 
Ls ore ie, Pires ‘< 
P et 
+ he ‘ ™ Sg Tid , fed} t 
ths 20 Guat at 
4\_* * < > ‘% a 
">? 
! , oy § } 
Ss be Pe” Pats ee | 
v7} N ry 4 fi io 
Lath coe 30 as 
NUN AE Me WR gi 
, . sr 4 : » 
ee 
‘ - » 
i ty 
; - 
~ " 
7. 
; w ee be 
- 7 - 
y . ; 
ot 4 F ab vf 
ae é 
4 { Ai 
M i of ad 
eae AP Rey 
* “ 
* x UY id 
N 
‘. ye . # 
r Le, 
/ hick ; 
’ > 
‘! 7 a ear 
i ae 
— i 
Pe — , 
v 
4 , 
a »? 
2a Aw A hel 
». 7” 
rc - ay) 
# % < D7 i 
¢ ‘ 
j 
) * 
3 
2 
-—" 
- it} 
a4 
i 
- , 2 ; 
xu : 
a 
. 
' : 
é » . 4 ~ - 
P fn 
a 
‘ 5 Ms 
. i , 
y ' 
ch ‘ 
e ‘ : 
i> ie 
‘ 
Rael ta 
a *. 
or 
: 
be Oty 
4” 4 
“ay ; 
= as 
a. any 
” J 
; a ’ 
' ‘ 
* a , 
‘ 7 ; 1 Ae 
\ a neal © 
. * : ay , 7 ; or 
; “hee i ate 
” ie 
Ge nee le Beit ad Le, 
i Ma e 
5 A ' big 
; x 7s 
: “ | edie | 
eee | P 
» ‘ 
Dare 
~ 
oe a ‘ : 
. 
& 
Ms * 
~ i 
ae oy a 
i es 
- 7 
sre d 


APPENDIX II 


THE CASE OF ADAM. 


THE CASE OF ADAM. 


&"N our chapter on God’s Sovereignty and Human Re- 
ch sponsibility we dealt only with the responsibility of 
gee, man considered as a fallen creature, and at the close of 
the discussion it was pointed out how that the measure and 
extent of our responsibility varies in different individuals 
according to the advantages they have received and the priv- 
ileges they have enjoyed, which is a truth clearly established 
by the declaration of the Saviour recorded in Luke 12:47, 
48, “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and pre- 
pared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be 
beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did not 
commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few 
stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall 
be much required: and to whom men have committed much, 
of him they will ask the more”. 

Now, strictly speaking, there are only two men who have 
ever walked this earth which were endowed with full and 
unimpaired responsibility, and they were the first and last 
Adam’s. The responsibility of each of the rational descend- 
ants of Adam, while real, and sufficient to establish them ac- 
countable to their Creator is, nevertheless, limited in degree, 
limited because impaired through the effects of the Fall. 

Not only is the responsibility of each descendent of Adam 
sufficient to constitute him, personally an accountable crea- 
ture (that is, as one so constituted that he ought to do right 
and ought not to do wrong), but originally every one of us 
was also endowed, judicially with full and unimpaired re- 
sponsibility, not in ourselves, but, in Adam. It should ever be 
borne in mind that not only was Adam the father of the hu- 


312 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


man race seminally, but he was also the head of the race Jegal- 
ly. When Adam was placed in Eden he stood there as our rep- 
resentative, so that what he did is reckoned to the account of 
each for whom he acted. 

It is beside our present purpose to enter here into a lengthy 
discussion of the Federal Headship of Adam%, suffice it now 
to refer the reader to Romans 5:12-19 where this truth is 
dealt with by the Holy Spirit. In the heart of this most im- 
portant passage we are told that Adam was “the figure of 
Him that was to come” (v 14), that is, of Christ. In what 
sense, then, was Adam “the figure” of Christ? The answer 
must be, In that he was a Federal Head; in that he acted on 
the behalf of a race of men; in that he was one who has 
legally, as well as vitally, affected all connected with him. 
It is for this reason that the Lord Jesus is in 1 Cor. 15:45 
denominated “‘the last Adam’’, that is, the Head of the new 
creation as the first Adam was the Head of the old creation. 

In Adam, then, each of us stood. As the representative 
of the human race the first man acted. As then Adam was 
created with full and unimpaired responsibility, unimpaired 
because there was no evil nature within him; and as we were 
all “in Adam’’, it necessarily follows that each of us, origi- 
nally, were also endowed with full and unimpaired responsi- 
bility. Therefore, in Eden, it was not merely the responsi- 
bility of Adam as a single person that was tested, but it was 
Human Responsibility, the Responsibility of the Race, as a 
whole and in part, which was on trial. 

Webster defines Responsibility first, as “liable to account” ; 
second, as “able to discharge an obligation”. Perhaps the 
meaning and scope of the term Responsibility might be ex- 
pressed and summed up in the one word oughtness. God- 
wards, responsibility respects that which is due the Creator 


*Though there is deep and widespread need for this, and we hope 
ere long to write upon this subject in another book. 


THE CASE OF ADAM 313 


from the creature, and which the creature is under moral 
obligations to render. 

In the light of the above definition it is at once apparent 
that Responsibility is something that must be placed on trial. 
And as a fact, this is, as we learn from the Inspired Record, 
exactly what transpired in Eden. Adam was placed on pro- 
bation. His obligations to God were put to the test. His 
loyalty to the Creator was tried out. The test consisted of 
obedience to His Maker’s command. Of a certain tree he 
was forbidden to eat. 

But right here a very formidable difficulty confronts us. 
From God’s standpoint the result of Adam’s probation was 
not left in uncertainty. Before He formed him out of the 
dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath 
of life, God knew exactly how the appointed test would 
terminate. With this statement every Christian reader must 
be in accord, for, to deny God’s foreknowledge is to deny 
His omniscience, and this is to repudiate one of the funda- 
mental attributes of Deity. But we must go further: not 
only had God a perfect foreknowledge of the outcome of 
Adam’s trial, not only did His omniscient eye see Adam 
eating of the forbidden fruit, but He decreed beicrehand 
that he should do so. This is evident not only from the 
general fact that nothing happens save that which the Crea- 
tor and Governor of the universe has eternally purposed, 
but also from the express declaration of Scripture that 
Christ as a Lamb “verily was foreordained before the foun- 
dation of the world” (1 Peter 1:20). If, then, God had fore- 
ordained before the foundation of the world that Christ 
should, in due time, be offered as a Sacrifice for sin, then it 1s 
unmistakably evident that God had also foreordained sin 
should enter the world, and if so, that Adam should trans- 
gress and fall. In full harmony with this, God Himself 


314 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


placed in Eden the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, 
and also allowed the Serpent to enter and deceive Eve. 

Here then is the difficulty: If God had eternally decreed 
that Adam should eat of the tree, how could he be held re- 
sponsible not to eat of it? Formidable as the problem ap- 
pears, nevertheless, it is capable of a solution, a solution, 
moreover, which can be grasped even by the finite mind. 
The solution is to be found in the distinction between God’s 
secret will and His revealed will. As stated in Appendix 
I, human responsibility is measured by our knowledge of 
God’s revealed will; what God has told us, not what He has 
not told us, is the definer of our duty. So it was with Adam. 

That God had decreed sin should enter this world through 
the disobedience of our first parents was a secret hid in His 
own breast. Of this Adam knew nothing, and that made all 
the difference so far as his responsibility was concerned. 
Adam was quite unacquainted with the Creator’s hidden 
counsels. What concerned him was God’s revealed will. 
And that was plain! God had forbidden him to eat of the 
tree, and that was enough. But God went further: He even 
warned Adam of the dire consequences which would follow 
should he disobey—death would be the penalty. Transgres- 
sion, then, on the part of Adam was entirely ewxcuseless. 
Created with no evil nature in him, with a will in perfect 
equipoise, placed in the fairest environment, given domin- 
ion over all the lower creation, allowed full liberty with only 
a single restriction upon him, plainly warned of what would 
follow an act of insubordination to God, there was every pos- 
sible inducement for Adam to preserve his innocence; and, 
should he fail and fall, then by every principle of righteous- 
ness his blood must lie upon his own head, and his guilt be 
imputed to all in whose behalf he acted. 

Had God disclosed to Adam His purpose that sin would 
enter this world, and that He had decreed Adam should eat 


THE CASE OF ADAM ~ 818 


of the forbidden fruit, it is obvious that Adam could not 
have been held responsible for the eating of it. But in that 
God withheld the knowledge of His counsels from Adam his 
accountability was not interfered with. 

Again; had God created Adam with a bias toward evil, 
then human responsibility had been impaired and man’s 
probation merely one in name. But inasmuch as Adam was 
included among that which God, at the end of the sixth day, 
pronounced “Very good”, and, inasmuch as man was made 
“upright” (Ecc. 7:29), then every mouth must be “stopped” 
and “the whole world” must acknowledge itself “guilty be- 
fore God” (Rom. 3:19). 

Once more: it needs to be carefully borne in mind that 
God did not decree that Adam should sin and then inject into 
Adam an inclination to evil, in order that His decree might 
be carried out. No; “God cannot be tempted, neither tempt- 
eth He any man” (Jas. 1:13). Instead, when the Serpent 
came to tempt Eve, God caused her to remember His com- 
mand forbidding to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good 
and evil and of the penalty attached to disobedience! Thus, 
though God had decreed the Fall, in no sense what He the 
Author of Adam’s sin, and at no point was Adam’s responsi- 
bility impaired. Thus may we admire and adore the “man- 
ifold wisdom of God”, in devising a way whereby His eter- 
nal decree should be accomplished, and yet the responsibility 
of His creatures be preserved intact. 


APPENDIX III. 


THE MEANING OF “KOSMOS” IN JOHN 3:16. 


boy 


THE MEANING OF “KOSMOS” IN JOHN 3:16. 


It may appear to some of our readers that the Exposition 
we have given of John 3:16 in the chapter on “Difficulties 
and Objections” is a forced and unnatural one, inasmuch 
as our difinition of the term “world” seems to be out of har- 
mony with the meaning and scope of this word in other pass- 
ages, where, to supply the world of believers (God’s Elect) 
as a definition of “world” would make no sense. Many 
have said to us, “Surely, ‘world’ means world, that is, you, 
me, and everybody.” In reply we would say: We know from 
experience how difficult it is to set aside the “traditions of 
men’ and come to a passage which we have heard explained 
in a certain way scores of times, and study it carefully for 
ourselves without bias. Nevertheless, this is essential if we 
would learn the mind of God. 

Many people suppose they know already the simple mean- 
ing of John 3:16, and therefore they conclude that no dili- 
gent study is required of them to discover the precise teach- 
ing of this verse. Needless to say, such an attitude shuts 
out any further light which they otherwise might obtain on 
the passage. Yet, if anyone will take a Concordance and read 
carefully the various passages in which the term “world” 
(as a translation of “Kosmos”) occurs, they will quickly 
perceive that to ascertain the precise meaning of the word 
“world” in any given passage is not nearly so easy as is pop- 
ularly supposed. The word “Kosmos,” and its English 
equivolent “world,” is not used with a uniform significance 
in the New Testament. Very far from it. It is used in 
quite a number of different ways. Below we will refer to a 
few passages where this term occurs, suggesting a tentative 
definition in each case: 


320 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


t “Kosmos” is used of the Universe as a whole: Acts 17: 
24— 
“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing 
that He is Lord of heaven and earth.” 


2 “Kosmos” is used of the earth: John 13:1; Eph. 1:4, etc., 
CG 

“When Jesus knew that His hour was come that He 
should depart out of this world unto the Father, having 
loved His own which were in the world He loved them unto 
the end.” “Depart out of this world” signifies, leave this 
earth. 

“According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foun- 
dation of the world.” This expression signifies, before 
the earth was founded—compare Job 38:4 etc. 


3 “Kosmos” is used of the World-System: John 12:31 ete. 
“Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the Prince 
of this world be cast out” Reese Bente Matt. 4:8 and I John 
S510; Raav 
4 “Kosmos” is used of the whole Human Race: Rom. 3: 
£0; Ct. 

“Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it 
saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may 
be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before 
God.” 


+s “Kosmos” is used of Humanity minus Believers: John 
15:18; Rom. 3:6— 

“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before 
it hated you.”’ Believers do not “hate” Christ, so that “the 
world” here must signify the world of un-believers in con- 
trast from believers who love Christ. 

“God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world.” 
Here is another passage where “the world” cannot mean 


+B] 


THE MEANING OF “KOSMOS” IN JOHN 3:16 321 


“you, me, and everybody,” for believers will not be “judged” 
by God, see John 5:24. So that here, too, it must be the 
world of un-believers which is ini view. 


6 “Kosmos” is used of Gentiles in contrast from Jews: 
COMES el oeeLG. 

“Now if the fall of them (Israel) be the riches of the 
world, and the diminishing of them (Israel) the riches of the 
Gentiles; how much more their (Israel’s) fullness.” Note 
how the first clause in italics is defined by the latter clause 
placed in italics. Here, again, “the world” cannot signify 
all humanity for it excludes Israel! 


Fae tx0smos jis ised of Believers: only. John. 1:29; 3:16, 
Iwas l2 47.7 1-Cor. 44:0. 2.Cor.1 510, “We, leave 
our readers to turn to these passages, asking them to 
note, carefully, exactly what is said and predicated of 
“the world” in each place. 

Thus it will be seen that “Kosmos” has at least seven 
clearly defined different meanings in the New Testament. 
It may be asked, Has then God used a word thus to confuse 
and confound those who read the Scriptures? We answer, 
No! nor has He written His Word for lazy people who are 
too dilitary, or too busy with the things of this world, or, 
like Martha, so much occupied ‘with “serving,” they have no 
time and no heart to “search” and “study” Holy Writ! 
Should it be asked further, But how is a searcher of the 
Scriptures to know which of the above meanings the term 
“world” has in any given passage? The answer is: This 
may be ascertained by a careful study of the context, by 
diligently noting what is predicated of “the world’ in each 
passage, and by prayerfully consulting other parallel pass- 
ages to the one being studied. 

The principal subject of John 3:16 is Christ as the Gift of 
God. The first clause tells us what moved God to “give” 


322 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 


His only begotten Son, and that was His great “Love;” the 
second clause informs us for whom God “gave” His Son, 
and that is for, “whosoever (or, better, ‘Every one’) be- 
lieveth ;” while the last clause makes known why God “gave” 
His Son (His purpose), and that is, that everyone that be- 
lieveth “should not perish but have everlasting life.” 

That “the world” in John 3:16 refers to the world of Be- 
levers (God’s elect), in contradistinction from “the world 
of the Ungodly” 2 Pet. 2:5, is established, unequivocally es- 
tablished by a comparison of the other passages which speak 
of God’s “Love.” “God commendeth His love toward US” 
—the saints, Rom. 5:8. “Whom the Lord loveth He chasten- 
eth’’—every son, Heb. 12:6. “We love Him, because He 
first loved US’’—believers, 1 John 4:19. The wicked God 
“pities” (see Matt. 18:33). Unto the unthankful and evil 
God is “kind” (see Luke 6:35). The vessels of wrath He 
endures “with much long-suffering” (see Rom. 9:22). But 
“His own” God “loves” !! 


EP te PR oe ar 
ee ; 
; . ss 
s 
t . 
rie 
. ‘ 
. ’ 
' : 
? 
‘ 5 
7 
. ‘ : 
; 
+] 
| ' 
‘ 
s »e 
\ « : 
i ‘ 
Pal) 
e 
ret ee 
’ 
1 
~ 
b 
d 
\ 
pV ges: 
. as er 
I 
; 
} ; 
. 
‘ 
, 1 
‘ 
7 
; 
te t 
y 
: ; 
2 
Me 
t 
:. 
' 
‘ - 
a ie 
F 
> 
y 
\> 


<e. 1a 
‘ 
2 
‘ 
¥ ' 
a 
‘ 
t « 
1 
« ; 
> 
> 
>. ¥ 
_ » 4 ¥ 
; nail : 
» ’ ¢ ee 
, 2 Oe x ‘ ‘F 4 ‘ *y : ." 
: ‘ * P 5 ne els | a 
- ¢ 7 Le | ie 
’ 7 - 6 * be t 
a8 ts he] 4 ‘ 2 at Shia net sf 
’ . = , - 
» 4 : 2 Ae: : fp Peat i s 
a q 
yee 2 
a 
eS . 
4 . Pt @ 
F - 
As -3 ig 
“> . 
; rr t ei 
A. bed ie De 
i> - » ie | 
t 
Fe | 
. he — 
We 
’ 
ee ae 
ef taal ie ; 
‘ “ » > 
a 4 ‘ a 
% “ 
©. ? 
i, 3 od 
ns “ 
= + a 
‘ 
' % Ye ae . 
> : vas 2 
al 3 * 
, 
y ‘ 
« é ¥ ry 
e .% 
a: 
ot . 
; a 
F 
f o 
j t 
a! f A" ‘ 
% 
i) %, 
x : t 
; i f _ 
“ : - 
, 
| + 
r2 
w® r 
19 
} * ' 
r ’ : 
ae * 
‘ : : 
ih 
=> pee 
3 e > ‘ 5 
te we ; f) 
2 ¢ 
t ae sy , ‘ 
, J A 
; : 
AA fa. 
ead ety Ne | 
( ' 
i Ps 
* x, Ay ei 
A . 
tT 7 : Ly J 
Se» | < 
7. 
er < . , 
a 
4 i - 
' , 
, a” 
> a 
: . er. 
j i] 
a od 
. a 
; ' 
5 ‘ 
‘ ft 
- r ‘ 
tk . tt 


BY ARTHUR W. PINK 


THE SEVEN SAYINGS OF THE SAVIOUR ON THE CROSS. 


This new work of Mr. Pink is fully up to the high level of all his 
other productions. The author shows how marvelously full are the words 
of the dying Saviour. He calls attention to seven different sides of 
each separate “‘Saying’’. Ile shows how these Seven Words of Christ 
not only reveal His own personal excellencies, but also set forth the 
Gospel of our Salvation, as well as interpret the purpose, the meaning, 
and the sufficiency of the Death Divine. Mr. Pink brings out much 
that is new as well as that which though old never grows old. This 
book is suited alike to sinners and saints, for it not only sets forth the 
Way of Salvation but is designed to confirm the faith of those who have 
been saved. We believe a reading of this book will cause many to say 
“God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus 
Christ”. Contents: Introduction. Chapter I. The Word of Forgiveness. 
II. The Word of Salvation. III. The Word of Affection. IV. The Word 
of Anguish. V. The Word of Suffering. VI. The Word of Victory. VII. 
The Word of Contentment. 

Just published. 167 pages. Cloth, $1.25 postpaid. 


SATAN AND HIS GOSPEL. 


A forceful but simple setting forth of the teaching of the Word of 
God regarding mankind’s greatest enemy—Satan. Especially helpful to 
young Christians, though it should be read by all. Seven chapters on 
Satan’s Personality, Origin, Fall, Work, Doom, etc. Mr. R. E. Neigh- 
bour, author of “Folly of Federation’, ‘Glories of Grace”’, etc., says: 
“This book by Mr. Pink is true to the Word. Many today are ignorant 
of Satan and his devices, but Mr. Pink, with homiletical clearness, and 
Scriptural exactness, sets forth what God tells us in His Word about 
the great Adversary of our souls. The book covers a wide scope of teach- 
ing, but takes its name from one of the chapters called ‘the Gospel 
of Satan’. This chapter alone is well worth the value of the whole book, 
and should be carefully and prayerfully read and digested.”’ 

Attractive cover in two colors. 68 pages. 20 cents. 


PHILOSOPHY OF SPIRITUALISM. 


Shows the evil nature and awful tendencies of this fearful delusion. 
The follies and fallacies of Spiritualism are shown under five headings, 
and four principal reasons are given why it should be shunned. If you 
wish to open the eyes of others get this booklet. 5 cents each. 


SINS OF THE SAINTS. 


This_ booklet shows from the Scriptures that a “saint” (a believer 
in the Lord Jesus Christ) can and does sin, but that he does not thereby 
forfeit his eternal life, etc. The consequences and results of a believer’s 
sinning are treated in a twofold way; Ist, negatively under five heads; 
2nd, positively under seven heads. Treats briefly but conclusively of 
the believer’s security in Christ. We highly commend this little booklet 
to the careful and prayerful consideration of the Lord’s people. Many 
have been greatly helped by its timely message. Bound in attractive 
cover in two colors. 31%4x6in. 8 cents. 


A THREEFOLD SALVATION. 


Past, Present and Future. A _ helpful pamphlet making clear the 
teaching of Scripture regarding our : “great salvation” in its three 
aspects. Greatly needed by the Lord’s people in these last days—especial- 
ly by young converts. Neatly bound. 7 cents. 


Published by BIBLE TRUTH DEPOT, Swengel, Pa. 


THE REDEEMER’S RETURN 


By ARTHUR W. PINK, Author of “The Sovereignty of God,” 
“The Divine Inspiration of the Bible,” ‘‘Satan 
and His Gospel,” etc., etc. 


Cloth, $1.50 postpaid. 


THE REDEEMER’S 
RETURN gives a com- 
plete and systematic set- 
ting forth of this most im- 
portant and timely subject 
of the Second Coming of 
Christ. It contains in full 
ten lectures which Mr. 
Pink has delivered before 
numerous audiences in 
both England and America. 
Size 3, xy ind gus pages. Lhe ‘contents are: 


Introduction 


The NEED of the Redeemer’s Return 

The HOPE of the Redeemer’s Return 

The FACT of the Redeemer’s Return 

The TIME of the Redeemer’s Return 

The IMMINENCY of the Redeemer’s Return 

The SIGNS of the Redeemer’s Return 

The BENEFICIARIES of the Redeemer’s Return 

The CHURCIIWARD RESULTS of the Redeemer’s Return 
The WORLDWARD RESULTS of the Redeemer’s Return 
The CONSUMMATION of the Redeemer’s Return 
Conclusion 

Appendix 


Such questions as the controversy between Pre and Post Millennial- 
ism, the Church and the Tribulation, who will participate in the Rap- 
ture, etc., are dealt with at length. The prophecies concerning the 
restoration of Israel, the person and career of the Antichrist, the battle 
of Armageddon, the Millennium, etc., are examined in detail. Over 
five hundred Scriptures are expounded and tabulated. 


“The discussions are marked by great soberness of presentation, real 
Scriptural insight, true spiritual experience, and constant practical ap- 
plication. As a guide to the Scriptural presentation of the subject, 
this is one of the best books available, and is deserving of wide circula- 
tion and careful attention.’ —The Sunday School Times. 


The Redeemer’s Return will be found to contain food for thought for 
those who are more advanced in the study of prophecy, as well as help 
for the saints generally. We heartily commend this work from Mr. 
Pink’s pen. Buy it. Read it. Recommend it to your friends. 


Published by 
BIBLE TRUTH DEPOT, SWENGEL, PA. 


BY ARTHUR W. PINK 


THE MILLENNIUM. 


Mr. Pink has recently written an enlarged edition of his booklet on 
this subject which contains 84 pages giving a full examination of all 
the leading Old and New Testament prophecies bearing on the Millen- 
nium. It is written in a lucid and simple style, and the interest 
of the reader is sustained to the last page. We recommend it to the 
careful attention of all who are interested. Chapter contents as fol- 
lows: Introduction. I. The Millennium in Relation to Satan. II. The 
Millennium in Relation to Christ. III. The Millennium in Relation to 
the Church. IV. The Millennium in Relation to Israel. V. The Millen- 
nium in Relation to the World. VI. The Millennium in Relation to 
Creation. VII. The Millennium in Relation to Sin. 

Nicely bound in paper, 25 cents postpaid. 


THE NEW BIRTH. 


Just published! The subject of the new birth is clearly, helpfully 
and Scripturally discussed and considered from two view-points—the 
Divine and human. Five chapters as follows: I. The Nature of the 
New Birth. II. The Need of the New Birth. III. The Author of the 
New Birth. IV. The Instrument of the New Birth. V. The Evidences 

of the New Birth. 40 pages. 3%x6 in. Neat cover. 7 cents. 


UNIVERSALISM EXAMINED AND REFUTED. 

Chap. 

I. The Teaching of Universalism. 

II. The Evils of Universalism. 

III. Refutation of Universalism. 

Clear Scriptural teaching showing the fallacy of the widespread 
theory of universal salvation. Simply written but very helpful. 48 
pages. Neatly bound. 8 cents. 


THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Its Significance and Scope. 


Does this scriptural phrase perplex you? Are you clear as to what 
it means; What it is; When, etc.? Are you able to distinguish the dif- 
ference in meaning between this expression and that of The Kingdom of 
God, etc., etc.? If you would like these and many other questions re- 
garding this subject helpfully and clearly answered from the Word of 
God we urge you strongly to study this booklet, which contains “sound 
words”’ from the pen of this able and gifted writer. Just off the press. 
10 cents. 


THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION. 


Sets forth clearly and simply the teaching of the Scriptures on this 
important theme so little understood. Deals with 
The Mystery Of Election The Truth Of Election 
The Certainty Of Election, etc. 
New and enlarged edition, 7 cents. (Old edition out of print.) 


THE GODHOOD OF GOD. 


The latest and yet one of the most important of his smaller writings, 
This pamphlet clearly shows from the Word of God that God is on the 
Throne; that He is “doing according to His will’’; that God is God, etc. 
It is well calculated to bring the utmost comfort and assurance to the 
believer’s heart. Buy it. Read it. 7 cents. 


Published by BIBLE TRUTH DEPOT, Swengel, Pa. 


Date..Due 


ea 


rs 


PDP OIA IIE 


noe a ™ 


; fon naeetne % 
Shi = eet es es 
2 Bmes ap e,, ban ee le 


~ 


ee ee 


EPs eae ‘line ro Cu Atay aie ee ; i Ps Ne TZ aaa Ae 
en tS 4 > + Y os sys Tues 


> f PD ps Pe > 


; ; 
Tales oS ym are Min . 
; : 7 we 4 . : r Pa ple 7 
ca: tit ae 2, pe Syte t a oe 7 . Pe ee ae eee 
ate, e - Kw nl. Piel *F aot eos e aie FP ; a reanery ery oe . 
oT ae ae ; 2o¥r em. te . he et CE 4G «2 


i Soar - 


a “ 


5) 


JE Ge a eee 
. A. = =i nail 
a) ee eee Teer wen 2 


